Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 326
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Ha, the Germans and their tests. Germans are obsessed with the testing performance published sort of like Consumer Reports, but they swear it's not as biased or crooked and the people doing the testing are experts.
    yes we like tests. we got a powerful neutral organisation called "stiftung warentest" for all kind of products and another one called "ökotest" for ecological tests. they did a lot of good testings which made thousands of products better.
    stuff there is tested by engineers and scientists.

  2. #27
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Believe me, add me to the collective of "we"

    We're going through the tests right now to decide on a (heck) fahrradträger. We saw the Mont Blanc Voyager seems to be well regarded and the Uebler P21 15600 scored well on the tests.

    Now to see which french fries did well on the tests

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: multiaxial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    129

    Data!

    I love it, some actual test data. Thanks for posting. Were the Racing Ralphs the 2007 version or the new 2008 version?

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    580
    Any data on the Kenda Small Block 8?
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  5. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,957
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGiv'er
    Thank you. The flattening height of 35cm for the Nokian NBX 2.3 seems surprisingly low ... this is not a typo, is it?
    Yeah, I have had no flats with mine. But what might be a factor, the NBX casing is very supple, so maybe for the same pressure they are a bit softer, and happen to flat easier? (at that pressure)

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    269
    Wonderful tread. Lots to be learned from these stats. Looks like the Ralph evo's for XC and Nobby Nics for trail?
    Thanks

  7. #32
    *****************
    Reputation: Bikinfoolferlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,379
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy
    I'd love to see the results on a spread sheet format, anyone know how to put it in on Excel? I have "read only" software in Windows Home edition.
    Go to docs.google.com and do your own.
    "...the people get the government they deserve..."
    suum quique

  8. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,388
    This is great, thanks so much for posting it.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Orca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    306
    very informative thread. looks like I would have to spend more than $50 to get a decent pair of tires these days.

    anyway, the test results look interesting. While they provide a good starting point for deciding about a tire, they are not as conclusive as a comparison tool (at least not in its current format). Just for example, there are two reports on Maxxis ignitors, size 2.1 and 2.35. Interestingly, the bigger tire (2.35) has less rolling resistance, less cornering ability and less traction than its narrower (2.1) counterpart.

    am I missing something. My assumption is a wider tire of the same design/component would have more rolling resistance and traction than its narrower incarnation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    thanks.
    Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates

  10. #35
    himom!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Orca
    am I missing something. My assumption is a wider tire of the same design/component would have more rolling resistance and traction than its narrower incarnation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    thanks.
    Depends on what they do with the nubs. Do they make them bigger? Same size but add more? Just space them out farther? Different properties of the carcass?

    The point is that bigger tires aren't always proportionally bigger in all regards.

  11. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    203

    Sweet

    How about the Cont. Explorer Super Sonics?

  12. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    no small block 8 tested.
    conti explorer supersonic 2.1 added

  13. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    there is allways a conclusion/ bottom line to the tire test with more infos, e.g. "good for wet and soft", "dangerous in corners" etc.
    i will add that for the tires if i have some more time...

  14. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Orca
    very informative thread. looks like I would have to spend more than $50 to get a decent pair of tires these days.
    i´ve added the IRC trailbear. good and cheap tire!
    got the "best bang for the buck" award in the 2004 test. it is maybe not as good as brand new dual or triple compound tires fresh from 2008 but always a good choice when cheap available. here in germany i would prefer the albert or fat albert from schwalbe over the trailbear because they can be bought for 10€ each in the non-folding version.

  15. #40
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,897
    Quote Originally Posted by supersleeper
    Wonderful tread. Lots to be learned from these stats. Looks like the Ralph evo's for XC and Nobby Nics for trail?
    Thanks
    RR is pretty good for firm surfaces. NN bites deeper on loose and soft. Lots of people run NN front and RR rear.

  16. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    found more tests in bike 11/07.
    schwalbe furious fred and kenda small block eight added!

  17. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    193
    Henryhb you da man - legend!!!

  18. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lumbee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,909
    The Spec Resolution and Captain didn't do to well but I love this combination. I think the Captain rolls excellent for it's size. The Resolution is a touch slower but the grip has been great.

    Then again, I did ride a buddies GT loaded with Nevegals. Those tires stuck to the ground like they were covered in sticky syrup.

  19. #44
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,177
    This result looks kind of weird. The wider Ignitor Exception has lower rolling resistance and less stability and traction?

    What sort of rim did they use for the test?

    maxxis ignitor exception 2.1
    RR: 34,3 watt
    flattening height: 36,7cm
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)

    maxxis ignitor exception 2.35
    RR: 32,3 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

  20. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    268

    Other test parameters?

    Was a "moment of inertia" and a "flywheel effect" testing also conducted/measured. These two parameters are very important to the testing.
    It appears, from the way that the testing was performed, a heavier tire would show better test results while masking real world weaknesses.
    Please list all of the testing parameters. Otherwise, this "test" appears to be psuedo-science and does not provide valid data that can be scrutinized by the scientific community.

  21. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    421
    Any Bontrager tires tested?

  22. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    637
    It looks like all their tests are online for free with the exception of the latest one which requires a 2 euro fee:
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...ouren_0606.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...eride_0706.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...eifen_0705.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...ntest_0804.pdf

    I sure wish my German was better.
    Last edited by strader; 06-05-2008 at 12:08 PM.

  23. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    mibro edited with 06/06 scorings

  24. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,957
    the tests are done on a smooth drum right?
    So, how a tire rolls on dirt (at various pressures for optimum grip) may not be quite the same.

  25. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,333
    Conti Vertical 2.3 UST?

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... 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
  •