Results 1 to 56 of 56
  1. #1
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,180

    Help with UST tire choice: NBX, Big Jim, BG, Gravity, Vertical, others?

    I am desperately trying to find a rear tire I can trust. My most recent attempt was with a Michelin All Mountain UST. It looked great on paper and the traction was fine, but it proved to have a very poor durability.

    My riding conditions are mainly dry and range from hardpack to loose over hardpack. In the winter the trails become moist as well as in the early spring and late fall. There are lots of rocks involved, small, sharp, medium, and bigger. The biggest ones are not a concern as I simply ride over them or avoid them. The small and medium are the ones that hurt my tires the most.

    I did a bit of searching around and came up with the following tires as my contenders:

    Schwalbe Big Jim. 2.25 UST tire 780g. My Fat Albert that I run up front is my favorite tire to date in that function and thus far has proved to be extremely tough and reliable. It is very heavy though at 930g and the Albert, which I would consider, doesn't come in UST.

    Schwalbe Black Jack. 2.25 UST. 795g. Looks like a good choice for low rolling resistance while maintaining good grip.

    Nokian NBX 2.3 UST. I've heard great things about the traction of these, but the 990g advertised weight is a concern. I ran Fat Albert in the rear before and I felt like I had to work much harder on the climbs so I am very reserved with this tire.

    Kenda Blue Groove 2.1 UST. This one looks very good, but 2.1 seems a bit on a small side for my taste. I really wish they made these bigger. I've heard, however, that these come a bit oversized, so maybe it is a contender.

    Continental Gravity 2.3 UST. These look very good on paper. 800g and good grip. I've heard lots of reports on poor durability of Continental tires, though, so I am strongly reserved.

    Continental Vertical 2.3 UST. At 680g these are silly light for a UST tire of this size. It is touted as a freeride tire, but again, I am reserved due to poor durability reports.

    I would love to hear some opinions as I am currently running my Michelin All Mountain with a few tears and a tube inside, which is a recepie for more flats. I would also like to hear additional suggestions for tires, if you have any. Something for Geax, maybe, or any other tire. I've looked at Maxxis UST offering and haven't found anything that caught my interest, though.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: woodyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,148
    Big Jim UST - Currently running that in the back. It's my favorite so far. Very durable good all around tire. Not the best traction but very passible in all conditions. These take some pretty good freeride abuse.

    Conti Vert 2.3 UST - Very small for a 2.3. It's more like a 2.1. Very thin sidewalls. I loved the traction but it had terrible durability. I returned them after a week because I flatted so many times.

    I haven't tried the others. I too wish Kenda would give us some bigger UST tires. I've very interested in their stuff.

    Geax Sturdy 2.25 UST - This is a very big durable tire. Not for wet conditions though. I run one of these in the front now. It was too slick to run in the rear. Kind of heavy too.

    The tire makers really need to step up to the plate with their UST options. The options are really pretty limited if you're looking for a 2.25 to 2.35 UST all mountain/freeride tire.

  3. #3
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    You will find the Blue Groove/Nevegal 2.10 are the same or higher volume as the NBX 2.3 and Vertical.

    My picks would be the BG/Neve, NBX 2.3 or Specialized Enduro 2.40 (if you have the clearance for it. May not be as tough as the Kendas or Nokian).

    The Nokian may be the most durable casing.

    The Black Jack is not a great drive traction tire.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    123
    I vote for the Big Jim UST front and rear. I have been riding them for a while now. For me they hook up on everyhing. I run them down in the mid to low 30s. The 2.25 size is just right, and their weight is not out of line like some of the other large USTs out there.

    I had some issues with lug durability, but Schwalbe is taking care of that for me. I hope I just got a bad tire.

  5. #5
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,180
    Thanks for the replies, guys. I called up Larry from Mtn High and he didn't have the Big Jim UST in stock. He did, however have Albert UST which is 860g. I picked up the Albert for now and ordered the Big Jim when they'll come in. Hopefully this will solve my current headache.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  6. #6
    Bad Case of the Mondays
    Reputation: Jdub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    Thanks for the replies, guys. I called up Larry from Mtn High and he didn't have the Big Jim UST in stock. He did, however have Albert UST which is 860g. I picked up the Albert for now and ordered the Big Jim when they'll come in. Hopefully this will solve my current headache.

    _MK
    A bit of local info/opinion on those tires for you....

    I have been running a Big Jim up front for around a year now. Up front it works great for most trails up and down the FR. I ran Jimmys (2.1 version) on the rear as well. I found the Jimmy to spin up the loose stuff which is all too abundant these days. However, you might find the slightly bigger Big Jim to be just the ticket.

    Both the Jimmy and the Big Jim roll extremely well and the wear is pretty good IMO. The Big Jim on the front has worn extremely well, but the Jimmies on the rear I was getting about 3 months out of which isn't much more than the Nevegal StickEs I've been running.

    The Nevegal grips on the rear better (for my setup and style anyway) than both the Jimmy and the Albert, but it is heavier and rolls slow. And for comparison sake, the Jimmy 2.25 is just slightly more narrow than the Nevegal 2.1.

    The Big Jim, Albert and Nevegal/BG are all good tires IMO with each having an advantage over the others in different areas.

  7. #7
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdub
    The Big Jim, Albert and Nevegal/BG are all good tires IMO with each having an advantage over the others in different areas.
    I agree that all this is a compromise. I also hear that UST Schwalbes are bigger than standard ones in the same size. I am hoping that's the case as my standard Big Jim was not any bigger than a 2.1 tire. I have yet to verify this, but in the review section of this site, it appears to be so, they also are touted to be tougher (another thing I am hoping for). The Fat Albert UST is bigger than standard Weirwolf 2.5, offers much better grip and the knobs seem very tough as does the rest of the tire, so far at least, knock on wood.

    I have an additional reservation against Kendas after friend's Nevegal came off a rim after a mild drop, resulting in a nasty crash. I also know that they roll pretty slow, and since this goes on the rear, I don't want to compromise any more than I already have (I still miss my 2.25 Racing Ralph, but the tire is a bit too gingerly). I envy the grip they offer, but the rolling resistance is a major compromise for me.

    Thanks for the opinion.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  8. #8
    ಠ_ಠ
    Reputation: dulyebr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,192

    Blue Groove

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    You will find the Blue Groove/Nevegal 2.10 are the same or higher volume as the NBX 2.3 and Vertical.

    My picks would be the BG/Neve, NBX 2.3 or Specialized Enduro 2.40 (if you have the clearance for it. May not be as tough as the Kendas or Nokian).
    Shig,

    Many people say the Neve is slow rolling, but the MBA article claims good rolling resistance. Which is it?

    Also, if the Neve is slow, then would a BG UST front and back be a good alternative?

  9. #9
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by dulyebr
    Shig,

    Many people say the Neve is slow rolling, but the MBA article claims good rolling resistance. Which is it?

    Also, if the Neve is slow, then would a BG UST front and back be a good alternative?
    There are MANY versions of the BG and Neve.

    The tires (BG & Neve) with the slow-rolling rep have all Stick-E tread rubber (2.10, 2.35, 2.50 plus the DH versions).

    The MBA rating was for the Nevegal Lite-DTC 1.95. Nearly a different tire than the bigger versions. Smaller tread, the Dual Tread Compound (DTC) with the fast rolling L3R Pro rubber in the center and Stick-E on the edges (same go for the Blue Groove Lite-DTC 2.00).

    There are also DTC versions of the BG/Neve in 2.10 & 2.35.

    The tubeless versions of these tires are 2.10 only and use the "standard" tread rubber. It is neither the Stick-E nor the L3R Pro rubber.

    Confused yet?
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    I agree that all this is a compromise. I also hear that UST Schwalbes are bigger than standard ones in the same size. I am hoping that's the case as my standard Big Jim was not any bigger than a 2.1 tire. I have yet to verify this, but in the review section of this site, it appears to be so, they also are touted to be tougher (another thing I am hoping for). The Fat Albert UST is bigger than standard Weirwolf 2.5, offers much better grip and the knobs seem very tough as does the rest of the tire, so far at least, knock on wood.

    I have an additional reservation against Kendas after friend's Nevegal came off a rim after a mild drop, resulting in a nasty crash. I also know that they roll pretty slow, and since this goes on the rear, I don't want to compromise any more than I already have (I still miss my 2.25 Racing Ralph, but the tire is a bit too gingerly). I envy the grip they offer, but the rolling resistance is a major compromise for me.

    Thanks for the opinion.

    _MK
    I think you will like the size of the Big Jim UST. It is bigger than any 2.1 I have seen. The 2.25 UST Racing Ralph is really impressive. It is the largest volume tire I have ever ridden. It only has about .25"-.375" clearance between it and the arch of my Reba, and that is a short lugged tire. The casing is just huge.

  11. #11
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Rider
    I think you will like the size of the Big Jim UST. It is bigger than any 2.1 I have seen. The 2.25 UST Racing Ralph is really impressive. It is the largest volume tire I have ever ridden. It only has about .25"-.375" clearance between it and the arch of my Reba, and that is a short lugged tire. The casing is just huge.
    Yeah, that's another tire I am looking at. I LOVED my 2.25 RR. I ran a standard one with Stan's until the sealant ate through enough rubber that the tire disintegrated on a trail ride. I love the grip that the RR has in the dry hardpack. It is an enormous air volume 2.25 tire. Thanks for getting me thinking about it again.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    Yeah, that's another tire I am looking at. I LOVED my 2.25 RR. I ran a standard one with Stan's until the sealant ate through enough rubber that the tire disintegrated on a trail ride. I love the grip that the RR has in the dry hardpack. It is an enormous air volume 2.25 tire. Thanks for getting me thinking about it again.

    _MK
    One of my friends had some bad luck with the 2.25 RR running a Stan's setup. His sidewall ruptured during a ride. He did not notice it untill we got home though, it kept holding air through the ride. I just ordered two sets of UST 2.25 RRs from Larry @MHC. Still waiting on the second set for him. I took the first set.

    Why do yos say the Stans was eating the rubber? I wonder if it had some effect on my friends tires. I have never really like the stuff myself, but I finally broke down and started running it in my UST tires as a sort of insurance. I don't like the idea of patching a UST tire trailside and then re mounting it with a micro pump. If there is even a chance it could mess with the rubber I will be cleaning it out of my 100 dollar tire set tonight.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    this is a great thread and deserves to be a sticky so it can grow and be used more.

    regarding Stan's...Kenda no longer warranties tire failures if Stan was used. They tried redesigning to be more stan's-compatible (in terms of sidewall delamination as the latex penetrates), but weren't successful. when i raised that on another forum, someone associated w/ stan's chimed in to say it's a problem with ALL sealants, not just stan's. FWIW.

    however, Slime has made a tubeless-specific goo for some time now, and it's cheap and easy to buy at any motocross shop. i'm running it now with my specialized enduro pro D2 UST 2.4 inch tires (which have a nice big casing)...i don't put much in, since it's not needed for bead sealing obviously on my 823 rims. I think specialized is making the best UST tires right now in terms of reasonable weight for a given volume BUT with decent sidewall durability. I have 'em on my 7 inch travel FR/DH bike, and they rock.

    Unfortunately, specialized doesn't yet have a good trailriding UST tire in the 700 - 800 gram range that most of us are looking for. Like other brands, they do have some decent narrow UST tires but nothing in between XC and DH.

    So for trailriders with the mavic 819 rims or similar, the choice of fat footprint/reasonably durable/sub-800 g tires is very poor still. I'm puzzled that the tire companies are so clueless about what the market is asking for.

    To summarize, here's what I've learned or heard, from a trailriding UST perspective:

    maxxis - too narrow. the largish 2.3 versions come only w/ the super tacky, fast wearing rubber.

    conti vertical 2.3 -- okay overall. but narrow footprint.

    conti gravity 2.3 -- 800 g, some good reviews.

    hutchinson tires -- several UST choices, but each has its own set of complaints

    geax -- see other threads here; not ideal

    kenda -- some decent SMALL UST tires, nothing yet in the size that matters.

    IRC - mythos is too small. however i've heard pretty good things about the 2.25 trailbear. Mibro has soft center tread, which kinda sucks if you use pavement on access roads..

    schwalbe -- the fat albert UST and 2.25 racing ralph are looking promising...anyone know a cheap source? I'd like to try 'em.

    michelin -- the all mountain UST is not durable. other mich tires are too small for TR. their DH tires, on the other hand, have been used by many riders on UST rims and work well in that application.

    am i overlooking anything??

  14. #14
    old and busted
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    schwalbe -- the fat albert UST and 2.25 racing ralph are looking promising...anyone know a cheap source? I'd like to try 'em.
    Talk to Larry at http://www.mtnhighcyclery.com ... that's where most of us get our Schwalbes.

  15. #15
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Easy Rider
    Why do yos say the Stans was eating the rubber?
    This is the problem with all latex based sealants, not just Stan's. Amonia which keeps latex liquid interacts with the rubber. Main problem is if you're a weekend warrior and your bike stays put during the week. The liquid collects in one spot and slowly eats the rubber away. Some companies, like Kenda, specify that use of any type of sealant voids the warranty of the tire. I've switched to True Goo, as it is not latex based and is safe for tires. Works equally good as Stan's in sealing and lasts longer inside of the tire.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  16. #16
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,180
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    am i overlooking anything??
    Nokian is the only one I can think of. I pretty much agree with your point of view, being all mountain type of rider on 819s. Definatelly give Larry a call at mtnhighcyclery, great prices and even better customer service.

    _MK

    Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not just surrounded by a*holes

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    Cool, thanx for the link. I'll probably try a 2.25 big jim UST up front, and the 2.1 Jimmy UST rear. 780 g / 680 grams respectively. If the 2.1 is too small even for a rear tire, i'll get another 2.25 big jim.

    the fat albert UST weighs 930 g...the same as the 'honest' 2.4 inch specialized enduro d2 tubeless. So i'll skip that one for my TR bike.

    mtbr reviews on the big jim/jjimmy do mention wear issues and knobs coming off. guess i'll find out. i do ride in very rocky socal terrain.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    okay, so now i'm hearing more complaints about knobs ripping off from the schwalbe jimmy and big jim. urgh.

    the nokian 2.3 tubeless is sorta narrow for a socalled 2.3, and is heavy-ish. i.e. at that weight there are fatter, better tires around.

    going to the OTHER end of the spectrum, there are the bontrager ACX tubeless, very light at 650 g for a 2.2 but i've 'heard' the sidewall is not beefy enough for a good tubeless ride i.e. too squirmy. can anyone confirm that? i'm also worried about the casing durability...it's so light.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    Cool, thanx for the link. I'll probably try a 2.25 big jim UST up front, and the 2.1 Jimmy UST rear. 780 g / 680 grams respectively. If the 2.1 is too small even for a rear tire, i'll get another 2.25 big jim.

    the fat albert UST weighs 930 g...the same as the 'honest' 2.4 inch specialized enduro d2 tubeless. So i'll skip that one for my TR bike.

    mtbr reviews on the big jim/jjimmy do mention wear issues and knobs coming off. guess i'll find out. i do ride in very rocky socal terrain.
    I have never been to CA, so I don't know what you trails look like, but here in TN there are a lot of rocks and roots. Suprisingly the Racing Ralph may turn out to be a good "trail tire". Getting traction on rocks and roots seems to have more to do with how much actual rubber you can get on the ground rather than the how aggresive tread pattern.

    I have been runing the Big Jims, they never fail in the traction department. I have just switched to 2.25 RRs and they seem to hook up great also, and they roll FAST.

  20. #20
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    ...Unfortunately, specialized doesn't yet have a good trailriding UST tire in the 700 - 800 gram range that most of us are looking for. Like other brands, they do have some decent narrow UST tires but nothing in between XC and DH.

    So for trailriders with the mavic 819 rims or similar, the choice of fat footprint/reasonably durable/sub-800 g tires is very poor still. I'm puzzled that the tire companies are so clueless about what the market is asking for...

    am i overlooking anything??
    Yes you are.

    The Specialized Adrenaline Pro 2Bliss 2.00

    Best Specialized tire I have ridden since the original Ground Control (1985).

    Under 800g
    Casing as big or bigger as many 2.3 tires
    Dual compound rubber
    AWSOME cornering and braking grip (OK drive traction)
    Same casing construction as the Enduro Pro 2Bliss 2.40

    Check the specs on my Tire Site
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Yes you are.

    The Specialized Adrenaline Pro 2Bliss 2.00

    Best Specialized tire I have ridden since the original Ground Control (1985).

    Under 800g
    Casing as big or bigger as many 2.3 tires
    Dual compound rubber
    AWSOME cornering and braking grip (OK drive traction)
    Same casing construction as the Enduro Pro 2Bliss 2.40

    Check the specs on my Tire Site
    VERY interesting, yet shocking I was so happy w/ my enduro pro 2.4's, I asked the shop if they 2.00 adrenaline 2bliss was much wider than 2.0. he said no. btw I'm running the 2.2 'regular' adrenaline D2 on my XC bike and really like it. It is bigger than most any 2.2 and I wish it came in a tubeless version. Okay, so I'll try the 2.0 adrenaline tubeless...at least one of them. thanks.

  22. #22
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    I live in Socal and am running Big Jim UST front / Jimmy Light 2.0 rear. I am blown away with how they lose virtually zero psi after rides and/or letting them sit around for days. I have yet to have any burps. As somebody else noted, the only potential consideration is that the Jimmy has traction issues. If I were to do it again I would go Big Jim 2.25 front and back for this reason.

    I just bought the next tire set to try and am excited. I expect it to do well in SoCal conditions. It is the Spider 2.3 front / Spider 2.1 rear. Both of these will be big, especially the 2.3.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MetricEee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    76
    How well do the adrenaline 2bliss roll and how tough is the casing? Where I ride I have an interesting mix of incredibly rocky trails and smooth fireroads and I'm having trouble finding a good tire that doesn't give up too much in either condition. I was running RRs and thought I had found the ideal tire, but the rocks made short work of the sidewalls so it is back to the drawing board.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    102

    Spider 2.3

    Also check out the Hutchinson Spider 2.3 UST. It has decent drive traction, volume, weight, and can sometimes be found on sale for under $30 at Performance or Superho...

  25. #25
    Bad Case of the Mondays
    Reputation: Jdub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    okay, so now i'm hearing more complaints about knobs ripping off from the schwalbe jimmy and big jim. urgh.

    the nokian 2.3 tubeless is sorta narrow for a socalled 2.3, and is heavy-ish. i.e. at that weight there are fatter, better tires around.

    going to the OTHER end of the spectrum, there are the bontrager ACX tubeless, very light at 650 g for a 2.2 but i've 'heard' the sidewall is not beefy enough for a good tubeless ride i.e. too squirmy. can anyone confirm that? i'm also worried about the casing durability...it's so light.
    Yeah I ripped off multiple knobs off both my Jimmy Double Defense tires. I just consider it normal when you ride in the super rocky stuff. I ripped one knob off so badly I could see the belting in the tire, but it never really leaked and I rode it for another 100 miles or so before finally retiring it.

    On the plus side haven't lost a single knob on the Big Jim up front.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    the hutch spider 2.3 ust is similar in dimensions to the so-called '2.00' adrenaline..mebbe an ounce lighter...i've heard that the Spider traction in hardpack cornering is merely 'okay' whereas i own a non-tubeless adrenaline on another bike and it is awesome, great traction and durability.

    however if someone knows of a cheap source for the spider 2.3 i may give it a try. thx.

  27. #27
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    I picked some up for $25 2.3 UST Spiders at my local Supergo. Also picked up 2 Spider 2.1 UST tires for $49 from greenfishadventuresports

  28. #28
    meow?
    Reputation: IwantCake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    145
    just thought I would throw in my comments.

    I have only ridden on 3 set's of UST tires on 819's.
    1) Fat Albert light 2.3 (F) Little Albert light 2.1(R)
    2) Maxxis Highrollers 2.1 (F and R)
    3) Specialized Sworks Fast Trak 2.0

    I haven't really had any problems with any of my tires, except for the Maxxis. they have a slow and I just hate to put Stans in them. my Fat Albert would loose some air, I think mainly for ridicously low pressure, after awhile but not a huge issue to me.

    I love my Alberts, they have tons of grip and never let me down. I love having the fat 2.3 in the front, really inspires confidence. my only grip was the heaviness of the front and rolling resistance. I will run these again during the rainy season and winter.

    the Highrollers are OK, but they are way to little for my large carcass. I bottom the rear out on rough stuff running close to 40psi.

    I just put the Fast Traks on Monday and only got a short ride on them so far. they are nice! I haven't seen a nicer UST tire. super easy to mount, no tire levers needed, seat up easily and are stupid light. the roll super fast, seemed a lot faster than my HR's, and never had a traction problem on one of the roughest trails in the area. they are really large for a 2.0 tire also, maybe taller than most 2.25's and as wide as some of the wider 2.1's and narrower 2.25's. I was running around 35psi and kept "popping" off rocks and roots, I might be able to drop them down close to 30psi without bottoming out. my only concern is the are a "racing tire", if they last me 6 months of good riding without problems I would gladly drop the $$$ again. does anyone have any major miles on a set of these?

    John

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    I picked some up for $25 2.3 UST Spiders at my local Supergo. Also picked up 2 Spider 2.1 UST tires for $49 from greenfishadventuresports
    I assume your 2.3 UST Spiders are the 'MRC' gray/black ones--do you know the actual weight? Hutch website says 895g!, Shiggy's site says only 760g. At first I thought Shiggy musta been referring to the spider tubeless LIGHT version, but that only comes in 2.1 (695 g).

    thanks.

  30. #30
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by IwantCake
    ...I just put the Fast Traks (Sworks) on Monday and only got a short ride on them so far. they are nice! I haven't seen a nicer UST tire. super easy to mount, no tire levers needed, seat up easily and are stupid light. the roll super fast, seemed a lot faster than my HR's, and never had a traction problem on one of the roughest trails in the area. they are really large for a 2.0 tire also, maybe taller than most 2.25's and as wide as some of the wider 2.1's and narrower 2.25's. I was running around 35psi and kept "popping" off rocks and roots, I might be able to drop them down close to 30psi without bottoming out. my only concern is the are a "racing tire", if they last me 6 months of good riding without problems I would gladly drop the $$$ again. does anyone have any major miles on a set of these?

    John
    You did indeed buy a race tire. The Sworks uses a light casing and a tread soft rubber. I doubt they will last for 6 months of regular riding.

    The Fast Trak Pro 2Bliss 2.00 uses a slightly heavier casing and dual rubber compound. Weighs a fair bit more (767g vs 628g claimed) and cost is much less ($43 vs $67).

    You may want to get a Pro for the rear and run the Sworks front for longer life.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    102

    Pre-MRC

    I dont know what Shiggy weighed, but my pre-MRC Spider 2.3 (all black) came in at 770gm. I like the spiders only for rear because of I also find their bite up front to be just OK. As a rear, they work pretty well and at $25 a pop...

    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    I assume your 2.3 UST Spiders are the 'MRC' gray/black ones--do you know the actual weight? Hutch website says 895g!, Shiggy's site says only 760g. At first I thought Shiggy musta been referring to the spider tubeless LIGHT version, but that only comes in 2.1 (695 g).

    thanks.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    thanks all for the info. I think I'm leaning toward a "2.0" (more like a biggish 2.2) specialized adrenaline pro D2 tubeless up front, and either that same tire on the rear or just for the hell of it I may try the 2.1 Rockster pro D2 tubeless, which is supposedly 688 g and has less knobby knobs but prolly fairly low rolling resistance.

  33. #33
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    sorry...I do not have a scale

  34. #34
    Bon Vie
    Reputation: PoKev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    624
    MK, I'll take you off the board for a couple: Specialized Enduro 2.4 2Bliss - as Shiggy mentioned this is a great tire if you have the clearance. Or try the Roll-X Pro 2Bliss, I know it's a 2.0 but I ride in similar conditions and have never lacked for traction with this tire. Where others would break loose the Roll-X would keep on keepin' on.

    I've tried the Blue Groove and it just didn't hookup as well as the Stick-e version. Maybe Kenda will produce the UST in the Stick-e. Until the the Spesh tires grip much better, IMHO.

    peace...........
    Let go, and let it flow!!!!

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wankel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    604
    Does anyone sell the specialized tires online?

  36. #36
    meow?
    Reputation: IwantCake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    You did indeed buy a race tire. The Sworks uses a light casing and a tread soft rubber. I doubt they will last for 6 months of regular riding.

    The Fast Trak Pro 2Bliss 2.00 uses a slightly heavier casing and dual rubber compound. Weighs a fair bit more (767g vs 628g claimed) and cost is much less ($43 vs $67).

    You may want to get a Pro for the rear and run the Sworks front for longer life.
    I knew I was getting into when I picked them up, but it's all about the Sworks BABY!! lol

    I don't ride alot of miles a week, maybe 15~20 miles if I'm lucky. so, they should last for a while, thanks for the info though.... the weight is not a big issue to me, I have plenty to remove off of my body before I even really consider tire weight. I would have probably gotten the Pro's, but these are the only Fast Traks they had in stock. = (

    Quote Originally Posted by wankel
    Does anyone sell the specialized tires online?
    I don't believe you can, I know you can only get them at a Specialized dealer. I'm not even sure they can sell them online.

  37. #37
    Bad Case of the Mondays
    Reputation: Jdub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by wankel
    Does anyone sell the specialized tires online?
    Specialized does...

    Link here

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by wankel
    Does anyone sell the specialized tires online?
    yep, i've bought several specialized tires in the last year, but unfortunately specialized has a monopoly of sorts on that (other than the odd thing on e-bay) so you're forced to pay msrp + shipping + tax. I spent about $200 bucks it seemed for two godd*mn tires

    since tires are not that expensive to make, and are a consumable item, the pricing is quite 'elastic'. for example last year when the kenda blue grooves were generally considered one of the best non-ust tires on the market, i was getting them for 50 bucks a PAIR at one small online store, while another was charging nearly twice that.

    unfortunately, you don't find these options w/ specialized tires.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    shiggy hasn't commented on the spider weight discrepancy, so I'm gonna assume that his website is referring to the weight of the old, obsolete non-MRC spider 2.3 UST, and thus the new MRC spider 2.3 UST is in fact around 900g as per hutchinson's web site.

    speaking of mtbtires.com, i noticed that the durometer column for specialized tires doesn't agree with specialized.com's data. duro is not 50/60, but is 55/65. this is a major scandal and should prove bigger than the Karl Rove story currently in the headlines.


  40. #40
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    what does "Pre-MRC" mean? sorry but I don't know...and how do I know if mine are Pre-MRC or not?

  41. #41
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    shiggy hasn't commented on the spider weight discrepancy, so I'm gonna assume that his website is referring to the weight of the old, obsolete non-MRC spider 2.3 UST, and thus the new MRC spider 2.3 UST is in fact around 900g as per hutchinson's web site.
    The Spider Tubeless 2.3 I have are '04 models.



    speaking of mtbtires.com, i noticed that the durometer column for specialized tires doesn't agree with specialized.com's data. duro is not 50/60, but is 55/65. this is a major scandal and should prove bigger than the Karl Rove story currently in the headlines.

    You better check the Spec site again. Not all the tires use the same durometer combos.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  42. #42
    meow?
    Reputation: IwantCake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    yep, i've bought several specialized tires in the last year, but unfortunately specialized has a monopoly of sorts on that (other than the odd thing on e-bay) so you're forced to pay msrp + shipping + tax.

    unfortunately, you don't find these options w/ specialized tires.
    I bought mine from a LBS, not really local, but within driving distance. I picked up my Fast Traks that are $67.00 a piece from Specialized and only paid $54.00 a piece.

    John

  43. #43
    Bon Vie
    Reputation: PoKev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Yes you are.

    The Specialized Adrenaline Pro 2Bliss 2.00

    Best Specialized tire I have ridden since the original Ground Control (1985).

    Under 800g
    Casing as big or bigger as many 2.3 tires
    Dual compound rubber
    AWSOME cornering and braking grip (OK drive traction)
    Same casing construction as the Enduro Pro 2Bliss 2.40

    Check the specs on my Tire Site

    Shiggy, I've been switching between the Enduro Pro 2.4 and Roll-X Pro (both 2Bliss) up front depending on the days ride, and have found them to be excellent tires. Thought about the Adrenaline 2.0 but heard they squirm a bit in transition from straight on to cornering. Have you found this to be true, what are your thoughts?

    peace...............
    Let go, and let it flow!!!!

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    thansk for the spider 2.3 confirmation.

    i know the duro's vary with the tire, but i coulda sworn it had 55/65 listed for enduro pro D2 on the specialized site. i wrote it down and everything.

    specialized has got quite the range of D2 durometer blends, depending on intended use:

    50/60, 55/60, 55/65, and 60/70 for the enduro pro, roll X, adrenaline pro, and rockster, respectively.

  45. #45
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by PoKev
    Shiggy, I've been switching between the Enduro Pro 2.4 and Roll-X Pro (both 2Bliss) up front depending on the days ride, and have found them to be excellent tires. Thought about the Adrenaline 2.0 but heard they squirm a bit in transition from straight on to cornering. Have you found this to be true, what are your thoughts?

    peace...............
    No squirm at all. One of the better tires in this regard.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  46. #46
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    No squirm at all. One of the better tires in this regard.
    OK,
    So I have been watching this thread carefully. I am currently running Phat Albert UST front and rear. Rear tire is wearing and curious to try something new. I live in SLC, UT, ride mostly dry loose stuff with some soft dusty sections, but then it is wet in spring and fall. Lots of rocks at Park City and other mountain trails I ride a lot.

    Reading this thread I am thinking a 2.2 Adrenaline Pro 2bliss up front (Shiggy says it corners awesome but not great drive traction) and the 2.2 should be huge based on the 2.0 specs on Shiggy's site.

    I am thinking a 2.2 or 2.3 Enduro Pro 2bliss for the rear. Does this have better drive traction than the Adrenaline and equally good cornering? Also, judging from the Enduro 2.2 and 2.4 specs on Shiggy's site there is a huge difference in the size of the 2 tires. Which one will be the same size or smaller than the Adrenaline up front?

    Also, are these tires any better than the Phat Alberts I have now? If not should I stick with what I have? I like them, but I also like to try new tires.

    *edit* just realized they don't make those sizes in 2bliss. What is the opinion of Adrenaline vs Enduro, I want a big UST compatible tire front and rear. Doesn't have to be the same timre, just great traction.
    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  47. #47
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    ... Also, judging from the Enduro 2.2 and 2.4 specs on Shiggy's site there is a huge difference in the size of the 2 tires...
    The Enduro 2.2 on my site is the "old" version. Can not compare it to the '05 Enduros.



    Also, are these tires any better than the Phat Alberts I have now?...
    "Phat" Albert? Never seen one.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  48. #48
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    The Enduro 2.2 on my site is the "old" version. Can not compare it to the '05 Enduros.




    "Phat" Albert? Never seen one.
    Sorry all knowing Shggy, I thought the Fat Alber was spelled with a "PH". I guess I need to be more specific when consulting the "experts".

    So basically you are saying you don't have any info to help me in my decision, right?

    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  49. #49
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    I only have a couple of rides on the '05 Enduro Pro 2.40 and none as of yet on the 2Bliss version.

    The standard Enduro Pro does hook up well in the soft stuff. A bit skatey on loose rocks. Little hardpack use. Nothing wet or even damp so no comments there.
    The rubber is softer than the Fat Albert. My gut feeling is the FA is a better all-round tire and longer wearing.

    Which is "better" for you? Do not know.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,340
    No one has brought up Kenda Kinetics 2.2 UST's. How do they compare in size and for loose over hard pack?
    2 wheels

  51. #51
    ಠ_ಠ
    Reputation: dulyebr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,192

    The Specialized Adrenaline Pro 2Bliss 2.00

    This tire sounds killer.

    Would you recommend a pair of these over a BG/Neve UST combo?



    Best Specialized tire I have ridden since the original Ground Control (1985).

    Under 800g
    Casing as big or bigger as many 2.3 tires
    Dual compound rubber
    AWSOME cornering and braking grip (OK drive traction)
    Same casing construction as the Enduro Pro 2Bliss 2.40

  52. #52
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    I only have a couple of rides on the '05 Enduro Pro 2.40 and none as of yet on the 2Bliss version.

    The standard Enduro Pro does hook up well in the soft stuff. A bit skatey on loose rocks. Little hardpack use. Nothing wet or even damp so no comments there.
    The rubber is softer than the Fat Albert. My gut feeling is the FA is a better all-round tire and longer wearing.

    Which is "better" for you? Do not know.
    Thanks for the feedback. I might have to stick with the Fat Albert.

    What are your current favorite UST rear tires approximately the same size or slightly smaller than the Fat Albert?

    Thanks again,
    B
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  53. #53
    Bon Vie
    Reputation: PoKev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by Bortis Yelltzen
    I am thinking a 2.2 or 2.3 Enduro Pro 2bliss for the rear. Does this have better drive traction than the Adrenaline and equally good cornering? Also, judging from the Enduro 2.2 and 2.4 specs on Shiggy's site there is a huge difference in the size of the 2 tires. Which one will be the same size or smaller than the Adrenaline up front?
    I have run the Enduro Pro 2.4/Roll-X combo f/r (both 2Bliss) with great success. Both tires hookup very well. Although I am interested in trying the Adrenaline 2Bliss as a front tire and see how it compares. BTW on a second set of wheels I have f/r Roll-X/Python tubeless combo.

    peace..........
    Let go, and let it flow!!!!

  54. #54
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by artnshel
    No one has brought up Kenda Kinetics 2.2 UST's. How do they compare in size and for loose over hard pack?
    The riders I know that use the Kinetics love it. I need to get a set.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pedaler845's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,137

    Kinetic 2.2 fan

    A few points on the Kinetic 2.2.
    I probably got close to 2000 miles on my rear w/o a flat before it had to be tossed because of Stan's blisters. It still had good tread. It is as wide as a spider 2.1, just a little burlier. It mounts up/ removes easy enough. Just bought another~$32 @ Bikeman. I've only used the rear with the front a directional Mythos. I use it on my hardtail for a little extra grab and cush. It seemed like overkill for my typical terrain on my dual sus. though. It is a fine snow tire too. Good tire for here in the northeast. Yes, I would like it 100 grams lighter (is it really 880?!), but it is worth that extra grab and cush on my hardtail.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,876
    update...i mounted the adrenaline pro tubeless "2.0" on my mavic 819 rims (yeti 575 trailride bike)...front tire is too narrow for my type of terrain in the Sierra mtns.

    the footprint is similar to a 2.2 in other brands, but still isn't enough. however it works great as a rear tire.

    in a perfect world, the 2.2 adrenaline would come in a tubeless version. get on it, specialized!

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
  •