Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13
Results 301 to 325 of 325
  1. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,181
    Quote Originally Posted by pat6192 View Post
    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 ?
    Previous testing a few years ago showed about 1 watt lower ghetto tubeless on the drum with a Ra Ra 2.25. That's at that the tested speed, load and tire pressure.Don't know what tube they used .They did tests on tubes and there was about a 5 watt spread between latex and heavier AM butyl tube.

  2. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4
    If we take the results above:
    Rocket Ron 26*2.1 evo 25,9 W
    Rocket Ron 29*2.25 evo 26,4 W
    Theorically the wider Rocket Ron should have less rolling resistance, so it appears with Schwalbe tires 29er have more resistance than 26. The difference is weak...

  3. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    77
    I'm suprise when comparing the Michelin Wild Race'r and Michelin Wild Grip'r

    The heavier AM Grip'r have lower rolling resitance than the XC Race'r. But the Race'r have better grip in turns, wouldn't it be more normal if the results where the other way around. AM tire with better grip and XC tire with lower rolling resistance?

  4. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    104
    I'm surprised by the big difference between between two tires I just compared back-to-back out on the trail: the Captain (39 watts) and the X-King (25 watts). While the X-King did seem to roll easier, it was only a little easier, and I stress LITTLE. I should stated that the Captain was 29x2.2 and the X-King was 29x2.4. That being said, the Captain seems to roll really easy to me, and I've read numerous reviews stating how good they roll considering the amount of grip they provide. Surely there are other parameters (the obvious one being contact surface) that's coming to play here that just can't be re-created in the lab. I dunno, I know this is all very debatable, but I just have a hard time believing these results are applicable to real world use. Or, maybe I'm just not very perceptive when it comes to rolling resistance.

    bk

  5. #305
    Don't be a sheep
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,331
    Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
    "Do not touch the trim"

  6. #306
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet View Post
    Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
    I think it is the other way around. The Euros have been focused on hysteresis for low rolling resistance for a long time. And that includes Michelin (French; using Silica) and Schwalbe with elastic base compound. They have the tradition, and they are the actual tire manufacturing companies with research resources - not a brand that contracts out manufacturing to a tire company.

    Other companies are now bringing their focus on RR and we all benefit.

    Regardless, as stated repeatedly in this thread, this is the best information we have right now and it is much better than Mountain Bike Action's stamp of hyperbole

    P

  7. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    7
    Thats always the same!, it depends on who make the test, if do germans. then germasn tire will win.
    Its simply

    i think the only way to know what tire its best to you its to prove to many tires until you find the tire that fits well on your riding style.

    And whats fit on you, may not fit on your friends.

    Discussion about tires its like football, we will never agree!

  8. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet View Post
    Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
    Other mfgs have also done well. But the tires you may think are fast because of marketing misconception may not do so well. Learn from that. It's mostly about the casing technology not tread height or spacing.

  9. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Mack-tiger View Post
    Thats always the same!, it depends on who make the test, if do germans. then germasn tire will win.
    Its simply
    BS. Typical xenophobia.

  10. #310
    Don't be a sheep
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,331
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    Other mfgs have also done well. But the tires you may think are fast because of marketing misconception may not do so well. Learn from that. It's mostly about the casing technology not tread height or spacing.
    Well that doesn't explain why German, Austrian and Swiss companies also win every other type of test they perform.
    "Do not touch the trim"

  11. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,181
    There's very few other tires they do test. Look at the price and availabilty of tires llike Maxxis in Europe.

    Look at the depth of research that has gone in to the best road tires[European] that have been availalble for what seems like centuries.

    European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
    The fact that they even test tire speeds in their magazines must tell you something. It is useful info but, at the end of the day, it is only one factor in choosing a tire.

    Their Freeride magazine had tires like Maxxis Ardent 2.6 , Specialized Clutch Sx win out over Rubber Queen and Big Betty 2.4 for overall freeride tires and maxxis minion F 2.5 and specialized Chunder and DH 2.3 win against Der Kaiser and Wicked Will.

    It's an off shoot of BIke magazine so they do the same tests on Rolling resistance, cornering traction and puncture resistance.
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 05-19-2012 at 09:05 PM.

  12. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gman086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,498
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    There's very few other tires they do test. Look at the price and availabilty of tires llike Maxxis in Europe.

    Look at the depth of research that has gone in to the best road tires[European] that have been availalble for what seems like centuries.

    European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
    The fact that they even test tire speeds in their magazines must tell you something. It is useful info but, at the end of the day, it is only one factor in choosing a tire.

    Their Freeride magazine had tires like Maxxis Ardent 2.6 , Specialized Clutch Sx win out over Rubber Queen and Big Betty 2.4 for overall freeride tires and maxxis minion F 2.5 and specialized Chunder and DH 2.3 win against Der Kaiser and Wicked Will.

    It's an off shoot of BIke magazine so they do the same tests on Rolling resistance, cornering traction and puncture resistance.
    I remember seeing that. Don't have a link to it do you?

    Thanks,

    G
    "There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!

  13. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    13
    Any reviews yet on the new 2012 Bonty XR4 or Spesh Ground Control ?? Just bought one of each for my all mountain ride.

  14. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
    Yup, that's true and I would like to add that it's not just trail conditions, but also the typical style of riding.

    But... it's not the whole of Europe though. For example, Germany seems to emphasise the physical endurance side of mountainbiking, while France is much more involved in the bike handling side.

    I know this is a gross generalisation, but you get that when you try to pin down bike-cultural differences. What I observe at XC racing events is very clear to me. Again French and German XC events: On one hand 'At your own risk, walk or climb down if you have to', on the other hand 'Everybody has to be able to bike 99,9% of the course safely, or it'll be considered too dangerous and we'll get sued or won't get permissions for next year if someone gets into an accident'.

    So what you end up with in Germany is lots of fireroad climbing/descending and the corresponding Schwalbe/Conti tires. In France: Techy, rocky singletrack and hey, everybody is on something beefier. Much more Hutchinson and Maxxis. Also the German brands, but the UST or snakeskin/protection varieties.

    I do not think there is test bias based on patriotism. German made tires are better at rolling on a rotating solid drum... I just wished they performed more tests like this one from a few years back, but with different brands: Mountain Bike Tyre Rolling Resitance - MtbOnline

    To me, that is still the benchmark test for translating tire characteristics to real world application.

  15. #315
    YT
    YT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    114
    Any info on Maxxis Aspens or Specialiazed Sworks renegades

  16. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    19
    Thanks for posting this data. I can see clearly why all my mates pull away so easily from me on my high rollers. Well thats my excuse from now on

  17. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    Thanks for these.

    That's post 2!

  18. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet View Post
    Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
    I agree. It's mostly driven by tire manufacturers.

    ************
    xtoph - endorfin

  19. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tally Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    23
    A question. How can nobby nic's (RR.28.0 watt) possibly have a better rolling resistance (be faster rolling) than kendra small block 8's (RR 34.2 watt). Something seems amiss there.
    Last edited by Tally Ho; 01-05-2013 at 08:45 AM.

  20. #320
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Tally Ho View Post
    A question. How can nobby nic's (RR.28.0 watt) possibly have a better rolling resistance (be faster rolling) than kendra small block 8's (RR 34.2 watt). Something seems amiss there.
    I'm not 100% sure that Small Block 8's actually have more rolling resistance than Nobby Nics, but here's how it could be true:

    Rubber Compounds The rolling resistance of a tire primarily is generated from the flexing of the rubber compounds in the tread and sidewall. When rubber flexes, some of that energy is stored (like in a spring) and is returned when it flexes back to its natural, 'unflexed' state. But some of that energy is transformed into heat, and is obviously not returned. Not all rubber compounds are created equally. Schwalbe uses a silica filler in their bicycle tire compounds, and silica compounds generally have less hysteresis than carbon black compounds. The polymer used in the compound also plays an important role in the compound's hysteresis and loss modulus.

    Tread Pattern The tread pattern of a mountain bike tire also plays a role. Imagine a mountain bike tire with tall, widely spaced knobs. As the tire rolls, these knobs come into contact with the ground. They exert regions of high pressure onto the tire's casing, causing additional, localized flex. In addition, tall knobs can 'squirm' and flex as they come into contact with the ground. As explained above, additional flex equates to additional energy loss. The tire's high rate of speed means this is happening pretty fast, resulting in vibration (obviously more noticeable on hard surfaces). This vibration travels through the tire, rim, spokes, and hubs to the bicycle. If you can feel this vibration through the saddle, imagine how much energy is being wasted. Of course on soft surfaces, this is not so much of an issue.

    Now the Nobby Nic obviously has a more aggressive tread pattern than the Small Block 8, so it has this going against it for rolling resistance on a smooth drum. But we know that the Nobby Nic uses a compound that I'm 99% sure has less hysteresis than Kenda's. We also know that the undertread thickness (i.e. the amount of rubber underneath the knobs and on top of the casing) of the Nobby Nic is less than the Small Block 8. So as the tire rolls, less rubber is being flexed. So theoretically, less rubber being flexed and a compound with lower hysteresis equates to less rolling resistance, all other things being equal.


    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    [The Ikon] actually is faster than the CrossMark in real-world conditions. As I understand it, the rolling resistance testing is done on a smooth roller at a single pressure and a single load. Far from the best method to measure RR of mtb tires.

    Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...
    The above is why I question the validity of the magazine's data. I know for a fact that the DHF 26x2.35 has more rolling resistance than the Ikon 26x2.2. So I don't trust their data at all.

    Another issue is that all testing was conducted on a smooth drum at a constant pressure. Do you ride on a completely smooth surface, and do you ride every tire at the same pressure? Neither do I. On a rocky, bumpy surface, a larger (wider) tire run at a lower pressure will be able to absorb the impacts better, and less energy will be transmitted to the bike and rider. On a very rocky, rooty trail a Racing Ralph 2.25 will be faster than a Furious Fred 1.9, even though the FF would have lower rolling resistance on a smooth drum test. And on a loose trail, an aggressive tread pattern is less of a hindrance than on a smooth, hard trail.

    Bottom line Take the Bike Magazine's rolling resistance numbers with a huge grain of salt. Pick the tire that is right for the trail, right for you, and don't sweat a difference of 8 watts of questionable rolling resistance data.
    Last edited by bholwell; 01-05-2013 at 12:08 PM.
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  21. #321
    just ride
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    623
    Can we get a test on WTB Bronson 2.3 for 26"? Thanks!

  22. #322
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,073
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...
    The above is why I question the validity of the magazine's data. I know for a fact that the DHF 26x2.35 has more rolling resistance than the Ikon 26x2.2. So I don't trust their data at all.
    German Bike mag have the
    Ikon 2.2 at 32.9w
    Minion 2.35 F/R at 35.9w/39.8w
    which is a fair amount of difference (note that the google doc has been tampered with I have a pre-tampered PDF I'll attach)

    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    Another issue is that all testing was conducted on a smooth drum at a constant pressure. Do you ride on a completely smooth surface, and do you ride every tire at the same pressure? Neither do I. On a rocky, bumpy surface, a larger (wider) tire run at a lower pressure will be able to absorb the impacts better, and less energy will be transmitted to the bike and rider. On a very rocky, rooty trail a Racing Ralph 2.25 will be faster than a Furious Fred 1.9, even though the FF would have lower rolling resistance on a smooth drum test. And on a loose trail, an aggressive tread pattern is less of a hindrance than on a smooth, hard trail.

    Bottom line Take the Bike Magazine's rolling resistance numbers with a huge grain of salt. Pick the tire that is right for the trail, right for you, and don't sweat a difference of 8 watts of questionable rolling resistance data.

    I appreciate your thorough thoughts on the topic, but have to counter that outside of these tests, consumers have no information on RR outside of fads, hearsay and bike media hyperbole. So as flawed as these tests may be they still provide some quality insight for us.

    I'll also say they they are at least trying to create an environment that isolates RR into a metric and is repeatable. Neither is possible to to match our individual riding conditions, styles, pressures, etc.

    In their articles I do believe that they state bigger tires and lower pressures roll better on rough terrain, they even split the categories so your type of riding tires (XC/AM/DH) should not be compared to the other categories (don't compare XC RR to AM RR as it is unrealistic) I believe they also state that a drum is not the real world. (it's been a while) Copy & paste multiple article text into Google translator to read.

    So until we get better data, this is all we've got and my experience with a good rolling tire vs a poor rolling tire has been the difference between coasting on the flats (even light downhills) vs pedaling. So I find RR to be pretty significant.

    But I do think your assertion is a good one: Pick the best tire for you, your riding style, your terrain.

    And I'll accept the +/- 8 watt error range.

    P
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Mr.P; 01-07-2013 at 09:49 AM.

  23. #323
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,518
    Any updates on the list?

  24. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    73
    An updated list would be really cool......did some web searching but couldn't come up with anything.

  25. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    550
    Personally, I find those tests rather meaningless. However, those are the most recent ones. Depending on your German skills you may want to run them through google translate.

    Testbericht über 23 Fahrradreifen verschiedener Dimensionen und Hersteller in MountainBIKE 3/2014

    Testbericht über 11 Fahrradreifen für unterschiedliche Einsatzbereiche in bike 10/2013

    Testbericht über Fahrradreifen in bike 1/2014

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13

Posting Permissions

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