Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 326
  1. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4
    Please someone post result for Hans Dampf from Bike magazin 8/11. Thanks

  2. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4
    Hans Dampf PaceStar - 29.7W
    Hans Dampf TrailStar - 41.8W

  3. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlok View Post
    Hans Dampf PaceStar - 29.7W
    Hans Dampf TrailStar - 41.8W
    But it only comes in TrailStar.

    Hans Dampf | Schwalbe North America

  4. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4
    In a few weeks will be pacestar version in shops...

  5. #280
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlok View Post
    In a few weeks will be pacestar version in shops...
    I'm trying to figure out when my next smooth metal roller or XC race on pavement is on the race schedule so I can get my Racing Ralphs aired up and ready for that. Not to mention, I need to figure out how to apply even pressure on the tires to achieve optimum performance.

  6. #281
    just ride
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    627
    Panaracer FR 2.4 vs Nobby Nic 2.4

    I'm guessing the FR has more RR? Do you guys know if it is pass 30 RR? Thx

  7. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Trond View Post
    Thanks for the great uploads.kinda disappointed with 29x2.2 Maxxis Ikon Watt measurement. I'd thought it would be faster than the Crossmark and comperative to the Racing Ralph.
    After riding the IKON a few times I agree with the test result. I found that the Ralph rolls way better than the IKON. This was noticed by my training partner too.

  8. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    371
    The top rolling-resistance tire is tubeless - do they test ones marked as tubeless?

    The X-King comes in at 25 along with a few others - in the RS version it is tubeless ready, I wonder if some of those 25 ones would be 20 if they were tested with no tube?

    Anyone know definitively if all are done with the same tube, or how they decide which ones to test tubeless?

  9. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    I'm trying to figure out when my next smooth metal roller or XC race on pavement is on the race schedule so I can get my Racing Ralphs aired up and ready for that. Not to mention, I need to figure out how to apply even pressure on the tires to achieve optimum performance.
    This same criticism has been made regarding roller tests and road tires for as long as it's been done, yet recently it's been shown that roller tests correlate strongly with actual road results. I've haven't heard of the same comparisons being done with MTB tires (I'd like to see it) but I see little reason why it wouldn't hold true. Rollers won't demonstrate pneumatic benefits and road riders have to factor that in as well.

  10. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmc1171's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    67
    subscribed

  11. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TX Flash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    63
    Henry,
    Have there been any tests on the updtaed 2012 Schwalbe Racing Ralphs? Schwalbe claims 30g less weight and 20% lower rolling resistance. That would make the rolling resistance on the 2.25 X 29 about 21.3w. Amazing if that is true. I am trying a pair now. They do seem to roll fast already and they are barely broken in. I'm sure they will get faster after a few more rides.

  12. #287
    pk1
    pk1 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    This same criticism has been made regarding roller tests and road tires for as long as it's been done, yet recently it's been shown that roller tests correlate strongly with actual road results. I've haven't heard of the same comparisons being done with MTB tires (I'd like to see it) but I see little reason why it wouldn't hold true. Rollers won't demonstrate pneumatic benefits and road riders have to factor that in as well.
    i'd figure the roller test primarily tests deformation resistance which is consistent on any hard surface. if the surface is uneven (eg rocks/roots) then it just becomes more significant as the tire has to deform massively to roll over a rock smoothly.

    deformation resistance is influenced by the tire compounds and the knob shape more than knob size, including the way the knob shape (and effective size) change as the tire deforms.

    where it falls down for mtb is soft surfaces where the tire and knobs sink into the mud etc and don't need to deform as much. but then traction is what you want to worry about rather than rolling resistance. the resistance you get comes from the tires size and the mud it has to displace to move forwards (hence the debate between wide and grippy or narrow and fast in mud)

    i wouldn't trust these tests as gospel but its useful to put some semi-objective numbers alongside thoughts and opinions, especially in cutting down to a short list to try for yourself

    another point to bear in mind is that both RR and traction can vary significantly for a given tire depending on the pressure in it and the pressure on it - that is to say rider weight. within a sensible range that probably tracks reasonably consistently between different models but sometimes the test pressures will hit right on the sweet spot for one model and well off for another giving a significant discrepancy in results

  13. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,334
    Rolling resistance measurements have been done for a long time. Textured rollers and road testing have been tried and, contrary to what many might expect, the results don't change over smooth rollers. What happens is the results become increasingly uncertain and reproducibility is lost.

    The first requirement of any testing is to have confidence in the data. Data that tells you less than you want to know is better than data that tells you nothing.

  14. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Taz8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman086 View Post
    Lets see some figs for the Maxxis Minion 2.35 single plys please!

    Have FUN!

    G MAN

    Anything on the Minion 2.35 single plys yet?

  15. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    26
    Suprised to see very little difference in the tests between the 29 and 26 tires with similiar widths and treads. I thought that in theory the 29er tire would deflect less so should have lower RR but the test don't seem to show that result.

    Also, I wonder if a textured roller would for the case of 29 vs 26 tires show a different result. I read there's a bike testing lab in Finland that uses textured rollers (but unfortunately don't publish these results). I also saw in another test by Schwalbe I think that rolling resistance was highly dependent on ground texture and that for parameters like tire pressure and tire width, on uneven ground like gravel and grass, rolling resistance decreased with increasing width and decreasing tire pressure, opposite from smooth surfaces.

    Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.

  16. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by MrIndy View Post
    Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.
    You can get lab data that demonstrates that larger wheels have lower rolling resistance but that's not really what people are talking about.

  17. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,258
    Quote Originally Posted by MrIndy View Post
    Suprised to see very little difference in the tests between the 29 and 26 tires with similiar widths and treads. I thought that in theory the 29er tire would deflect less so should have lower RR but the test don't seem to show that result.

    Also, I wonder if a textured roller would for the case of 29 vs 26 tires show a different result. I read there's a bike testing lab in Finland that uses textured rollers (but unfortunately don't publish these results). I also saw in another test by Schwalbe I think that rolling resistance was highly dependent on ground texture and that for parameters like tire pressure and tire width, on uneven ground like gravel and grass, rolling resistance decreased with increasing width and decreasing tire pressure, opposite from smooth surfaces.

    Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.
    Like narrow tires, Ii would expect 29er tires to have higher rolling resistance on smooth surfaces due to contact patch shape. This doesn't take in to effect roll over effect over obstacles.

  18. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    Like narrow tires, Ii would expect 29er tires to have higher rolling resistance on smooth surfaces due to contact patch shape.
    Rolling resistance is inversely proportional to the square root of wheel diameter.

    Also, drum testing tends to neutralize differences in wheel diameter unless specifically compensated for. Also documented in that article. The Bike Tech Review guys specifically compensate for this in their calculations.

  19. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    36
    Don't happen to have anything on the Panaracer Razer, do you? Great thread, thanks!

  20. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4

    Race Ripost compound

    Does anyone have something about Hutchinson tyres using Race Ripost compound ?
    About Cougar TLR RR 2.25 or Cobra TLR RR 2.25 ?

    Thanks for this post and those technical datas changing from marketing arguments.

  21. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation: painless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    117




    Signature

  22. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation: painless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    117










    Signature

  23. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4
    Thanks to Painless. Technically interesting. Surprised by Continental very good results

  24. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4
    It seems Bike tests above are about tubetype tires.
    The rolling resistance is provided by the tread but also by the sides (?)
    Continental, Schwalbe and Hutchinson have tires in the three versions, tubetype, TLR and tubeless.
    Once again, does any have information about side effect on rolling resistance ?

  25. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,258
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Rolling resistance is inversely proportional to the square root of wheel diameter.

    Also, drum testing tends to neutralize differences in wheel diameter unless specifically compensated for. Also documented in that article. The Bike Tech Review guys specifically compensate for this in their calculations.
    That's a little disingenuous.
    Yes for solid wheels. But that is offset by contact patch shape / size in wheels with pneumatic tires.

    Rolling drum test results I've seen show 29er tires slower than than equivalent 26" tires.I presume that is after they have compensated for wheel size? If not then it's just a simple calculation to get the nett result. if they haven't compensated , then your right , it should favour the 29er especially when you take in to account rollover effect of the 29er if using equivalent width tires.
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 03-08-2012 at 12:50 PM.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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
  •