Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 336
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    hi again!

    there will be a new test in the next "bike", available at 12th august.
    i will edit more then.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    good news everyone:

    many new tests will be edited!

    schwalbe rocket ron, the NEW fat albert front and rear, continental rubber queen 2.2 and 2.4, ritchey zmax premonition, speci purgatory, maxxis monorail, ritchey zmax intuition, wtb wolverine and maxxis ardent.

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i cant edit the first thread.

    cornering/ traction points are given compared to tires of the same class.
    here are the new tests:

    CC-Race:

    maxxis monorail exception 2.1
    RR: 26,3 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
    100% cc

    ritchey zmax intuition 2.0 wcs
    RR: 38,2 watt
    flattening height: 45cm
    thorn:d
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    100% cc

    schwalbe rocket ron 2,25 (stats: 436g weight, available in 2.1" and 2.4" and 2.1"/2.25" tubeless)
    RR: 24,7 watt
    flattening height: 52,5cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction:5/6 (more= the better)
    85% cc, 15% am

    wtb wolverine 2.2
    RR: 25,9 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    95% cc, 5% am

    all mountain tires

    continental rubber queen 2.2"
    RR: 29,8 watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    85% am, 15% ed

    ritchey zmax premonition 2.25 wcs
    RR: 35,2 watt
    flattening height: 67,5cm
    thorn: f
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    100% am

    specialized purgatory 2.2 s-works 2bliss
    RR: 37,2 watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    85% am, 15% ed

    enduro tires

    continental rubber queen 2.4"
    RR: 42,7 watt
    flattening height: 75cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    100% ed

    maxxis ardent 2.4" 60a folding
    RR: 36,3 watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    15% am, 85% ed

    schwalbe fat albert 2.4" front and rear
    RR: 29,9 watt
    flattening height: 83,75cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    45% am, 55% ed
    Last edited by henryhb; 08-12-2008 at 10:17 AM.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    569
    So which Racing Ralf is fastest?

    The Tubeless version has lower resistance, but is heavier by 130gr.

    I want to buy a set, but I am not sure which one to get, tubeless or not.

    Of course, I will run both of them tubeless with Stans juice.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,248
    Henry, which Maxxis Ardent was tested? The 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 3C version, the 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 60a version, or the 2.4 folding bead single ply version? Each one will perform differently.

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell
    Henry, which Maxxis Ardent was tested? The 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 3C version, the 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 60a version, or the 2.4 folding bead single ply version? Each one will perform differently.
    i´ve edited the missing information.
    the 60a folding version has been tested.

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    30
    henryhb, can you please state the casing and tread widths for both the Continental Rubber Queen 2.2 and 2.4, and the tester's impression judgement of each. Thanks.
    Last edited by Gee Up; 08-12-2008 at 11:23 AM.

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Gee Up
    henryhb, can you please state the casing and tread widths for both the Continental Rubber Queen 2.2 and 2.4, and the tester's impression judgement of each. Thanks.
    2.2 rubber queen
    56,3mm/56,4mm wide, no rim mentioned.
    (translated by me, so sorry for the bad english)
    "the 2.2" RW is only slighty smaller than the 2.4" one. depending on the different rubber (other kind of black chili compound) it is remarkable faster. it is a good allround tire with reliable controll at not too muddy surfaces.a little bit heavier than the direct opposition."

    2.4" rubber queen (black chili too)
    57,8mm/58,6mm
    (translated by me, too)
    "the black chili compound enables great adhesion, especially on wet stones and roots, causes higher rolling resistance, too. super downhill performance but limited touring suitability."

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,140
    Has this been added yet ?
    Great thread btw.
    http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Download...llustrated.pdf

  10. #110
    They call me Shoogs
    Reputation: TripleThreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by ghawk
    Has this been added yet ?
    Great thread btw.
    http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Download...llustrated.pdf

    great read, thanks.

    Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

  11. #111
    No pain no gain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    87
    Here is an additional link from a similiar German Test in 2004, with many of these tires still on the market: http://www.mckramppi.com/en/bike04re...asanalyysi.htm

  12. #112
    No pain no gain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    87
    Thanks for all your time on this thread - it's some of the best data on tires I have seen! Do you have anything on a Maxxis Advantage 2.25 or Specialized Eskar 2.3; these two tires were recently rated highly in the Mountan Bike Action September 2008 tire shoot out (why does MBA continue to rate the Nevegals so high, when they are the slowest tire on the trail for width and weight? After I chewed up 3 nev's on the rear of my Yeti 575, I put a Continental Gravity on and have never looked back... BETTER traction and far faster!).
    Cheers!

  13. #113
    she keep you buying rats
    Reputation: WeakMite's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    300
    This thread should be a sticky.... or maybe make a sticky thread with all test data members find (for hubs and tires and all wheel components).
    ;-)

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,197
    How does the NN UST compare to the regular NN?
    don't sweat the petty things, and pet the sweaty things

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    271
    Intense system 2 bless c3 2.0? It looks like a nice fast tire

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by rekibtm
    How does the NN UST compare to the regular NN?
    Heavier, slightly wider and less rolling resistance (2.25 UST Vs. 2.25).

  17. #117
    mountain biker
    Reputation: slyfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    529
    I just replaced my rear Scwalbe Albert UST with a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller UST. Though I didn't notice the increased RR, I certainly appreciated the DRASTIC improvement in traction on the wet roots and rocks. I'm convinced I wouldn't have been able to ride at least 15%-20% of the trail had I been on my Alberts.

    Looking at the test, I'm also glad I went with the High Roller over the Nevegals too, I find they do better on wet and slick rocks and roots.

    I still have the Albert on the front, and I like it a lot there... I think Albert front and High Roller rear is a great combo for xc/am riding when the conditions are wet...
    continuous growth is the strategy of a cancer cell.

  18. #118
    They call me Shoogs
    Reputation: TripleThreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    150
    A bump to a very informative thread

    Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,676
    Quote Originally Posted by slyfink
    I just replaced my rear Scwalbe Albert UST with a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller UST. Though I didn't notice the increased RR, I certainly appreciated the DRASTIC improvement in traction on the wet roots and rocks. I'm convinced I wouldn't have been able to ride at least 15%-20% of the trail had I been on my Alberts.

    Looking at the test, I'm also glad I went with the High Roller over the Nevegals too, I find they do better on wet and slick rocks and roots.

    I still have the Albert on the front, and I like it a lot there... I think Albert front and High Roller rear is a great combo for xc/am riding when the conditions are wet...

    I switched from a Nevegal 2.35 (with Stans) front and a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller LUST rear tire to Continental Mountain King 2.4s (with Stans) and the difference is RR is amazing. The MK rolls so much faster it blows me away. The NEV/HR combo has much better grip, unbelievably good really, but the MK are good enough and for me, the RR makes up for it.

    But I do agree, when I tried to ride the same lines with the MK as I had with the HR, I ended up on my ass.

  20. #120
    ...
    Reputation: Porchsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    605

    Thanks man!

    Thanks man, great thread.

    2.4 Nobby Nics are my favorite tire ever, and I've got a tire "problem".

    Porch
    "If we were Vikings, Rocky Mountain aspen stands would be our Vahalla and its singletrack our bounty" - Mtn Flyer Mag #14

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    edit: answering to the first post didnt work...

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,197
    make this sticky!
    don't sweat the petty things, and pet the sweaty things

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    it would be nice if a mod/admin could add post number 3 of page 5 to my first or second post on the first page so everybody can see all tests.
    how can i reach the mods/admins? reporting posts is only allowed for harresment.

  24. #124
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,804
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    it would be nice if a mod/admin could add post number 3 of page 5 to my first or second post on the first page so everybody can see all tests.
    how can i reach the mods/admins? reporting posts is only allowed for harresment.

    I could help out but I need the post number (top right corner of the post) since the number of posts displayed per page can be set different in the preferences


    you mean post #103???

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    yes i mean post 103! can you edit it to the first page?

  26. #126
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,804
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    yes i mean post 103! can you edit it to the first page?


    I edited post #2 and added the text of post #103

  27. #127
    Tire Geek O_o
    Reputation: cesalec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by scarsellone
    Any Bontrager tires tested?
    They sok....

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    big thx!

  29. #129
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,804
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    big thx!

    no problem!

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    618
    sticky please!

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    thx alot for all the good feedback and for making this thread sticky. i will keep it up-to-date if there are any new tests around in the magazines.

  32. #132
    It's the axle
    Reputation: Gregg K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,654
    I will second what "Vespa" said-

    With respect to the Nevegal and Mountain King, both UST tires.

    I spent the summer on the MK 2.4. The last three days I've spent on the Nevegal 2.35.

    They aren't even close in terms of cornering. The Nevegal is like being on a rail. I simply cannot believe these tires. I'm lousy at making comparisons. I never do it. But this is astonishing. So I disagree with the test results that show these as the same.

    The Nevegal is much more difficult to get rolling. Unless I just had three bad days in a row, the Nevegal is an energy sap. I don't think it's due to it's 50+ watts as much as the added half pound per tire. That's a lot of weight to be accelerating.

    By the way, is there a link to the tests?

    And thanks for this thread. Although it is limited. But it would take a long time to do the tests in vivo.

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gman086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,294
    Lets see some figs for the Maxxis Minion 2.35 single plys please!

    Have FUN!

    G MAN
    Last edited by Gman086; 10-27-2008 at 12:41 AM.
    "There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4

    Stan's Crows/Ravens

    What about Stan's tires any data on those? The RR must be really good, wonder how the traction rates?

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i have a lot to do at work right now. i will search for tests in the next week.

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    256
    Henry,

    I know you are busy, sorry can you check the figures you have written for Small Block 8? Is the RR correct?

    Many thanks..

    kenda small block eight 2,1
    RR: 34,2 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

    When the rolling resistance for Mountain King and Big Betty are less??

    mountain king 2.4 protection
    RR: 32,5 watt
    puncture height: 65cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    50% am 50% en

    big betty 2.4 triple
    RR: 32,2 watt
    flattening height: 110cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    (comment in the bike-test: big betty should have been rated 7/6 in traction and cornering stability)
    15% am 85% ed
    ____________________
    Ibis Tranny 2009
    Ibis Mojo 2008
    Litespeed Pisgar 2004
    Pinnarello Dogma FP2006

  37. #137
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,422
    Quote Originally Posted by GBR1
    Henry,

    I know you are busy, sorry can you check the figures you have written for Small Block 8? Is the RR correct?

    When the rolling resistance for Mountain King and Big Betty are less??
    I run both SB8 & BB tires, and can say that real world RR is pretty similar to those numbers. RR is about much more than just knob size and array. Rubber compound and casing have huge effects.

    P

  38. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    I run both SB8 & BB tires, and can say that real world RR is pretty similar to those numbers. RR is about much more than just knob size and array. Rubber compound and casing have huge effects.

    P
    Thanks for the quick reply. This is my personal experience as well. I am amazed at the amount of people that say SB8 have low rolling resistance, when I used them I was not that impressed with that aspect of the tire!!
    ____________________
    Ibis Tranny 2009
    Ibis Mojo 2008
    Litespeed Pisgar 2004
    Pinnarello Dogma FP2006

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: groovastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    101
    Hi!
    And what about Mountain king 2,2" Protection?
    Do you possibly have the results?
    Cheers!

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    247
    OK, so I'm picking up a set of Mavic 819s with DT 240s. What's the best tubeless xc tire in terms of traction, rolling resistance and thorn resistance? I guess in that order since I will load them with sealant.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    sadly, there were only one or two tests of wtb products. wtb tires arent available easy here in germany.
    i used the weirwolf 2.5" a lot and loved it.

  42. #142
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    sadly, there were only one or two tests of wtb products. wtb tires arent available easy here in germany.
    i used the weirwolf 2.5" a lot and loved it.
    Are they a true 2.5? Do you use them front and rear?

    The trails around here are a mix of sharp rocks, roots, loose dirt/gravel, and sometimes light mud. Are you using the normal 2.5 or the LT?

    Thanks!
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    38

    tubes?

    Apologies if this was asked and answered earlier, but were tubes used in non-UST tires for the tests? I understand that the same tire can have substantially different rolling resistances with and without a tube (e.g. with a tubeless conversion).

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Richy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    253
    I believe they are tubed unless otherwise stated.
    UK-Biking Shop now live - Also follow us on Facebook and Twitter

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: likeybikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Datalogger
    Are they a true 2.5? Do you use them front and rear?

    The trails around here are a mix of sharp rocks, roots, loose dirt/gravel, and sometimes light mud. Are you using the normal 2.5 or the LT?

    Thanks!
    I was extremely disappointed to purchase this tire and discover that the edges of the knobs measure close to 2.5", but the casing is nowhere near 2.5". On a 19mm wide rim the WeirWolf 26x2.5 ballooned to 52mm (about 2.1"). The casing on my Specialized The Captain 26x2.2" tire is wider than the WeirWolf's casing. It seems silly to me to measure knob width and call that the tire's width. A company could just make one tire on a 2.0" casing and trim the knobs to give a whole range of tire sizes. The wide tire in the product line would be the monstrous 4.0" wide Millipede sporting super-long feelers as cornering knobs.

  46. #146
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks, I would be mounting them on a 19mm rim (819) also. Any ride impressions? Front or rear usage?
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevbikemad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    815

    How Rolling Resistance is measured in these tests

    ok, first off, I AM NOT a science guy AT ALL. so excuse me if this is stupid.

    i just want to clarify how the Rolling Resistance tests are done for the German Bike magazine tests.

    the OP says the following;
    RR measurement:
    (bad english incoming!)
    Rolling resistance: All tires are set up with 2,5 bar. Then they are set up on the testing role without load. Then they are accelerated on 20 kilometers per hour. Now the resistance is set to zero to eliminate air resistance and bearing friction. Then the wheel gets loaded with 50kg. After a short time the tire runs again with 20km/h. The difference from unloaded and loaded run results gets the rolling resistance in watt.
    movements in the carcass play a larger role than the tread.


    Just to clarify - the watt rating is the difference between NO weight at 20 km/hr at 2.5 bar and the same, but adding 50kg load?

    If yes, here is my concern / question.

    What we see is the DIFFERENCE under load, but does that REALLY tell us which tire uses more or less watts? At least I don' t think so, because we don't know what the TOTAL watts are, we only know the DIFFERENCE between loaded and NOT loaded.

    For example, tire 1 may run at 50 watts with NO load, and 70 watts with load. So 20 watts difference. Which would seem very good.

    Tire 2 may run at 40 watts with NO load, and 65 watts with load. So 25 watts difference. Which would be rated at a higher Rolling Resistance rating using the method of BIKE. But it ACTUALLY has a lower total.

    Am I correct? Please clarify if I have misunderstood how the tests are performed.

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    637
    The way I understand the test they spin the tire up to speed and then zero the wattage measurement to remove the air resistance caused by the wheel spokes and tire knobs. Then they apply 50 kg force with the tire roller and take the wattage measurement. Essentially what they are doing is isolating the rolling resistance caused by the tire casing.
    It would be interesting to see how the air resistance caused by the tire tread affects the measurement. For instance the Kenda SB8 scores worse than the Schwalbe Nobby Nic in the rolling resistance measurement. If air resistance of both tires was factored in maybe the SB8 would come out on top with it's low profile knobs.

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dynamite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5
    Hi! what's about Specy Eskar 2,3" Control? Has it been tested? Thanks for the report

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    160
    Lots of thorns here....I assume that a higher letter rating is more thorn proof [because handling gets worse]. So is e more thornproof than b? thnx.

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    @ granpa:

    a is more thornproof than b, b more than c and so on.

    no tests for the 2.2" mountain king protection.
    no test for 2.35" minions.

    i am looking forward to the next year. there should be new tests in march.

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    122

    Mibro's really that fast???

    I just accidently ended up with a pair of Mibro 2.25's. I checked your German testing and they are about the lowest rolling resistance in the group. Is that for real? I mean, that is a fairly "knobby" spaced-out tread. I assume that is in the Front tire orientation, as the Rear orientation ought to have more resistance. Haven't ridden them yet, and may not; they came with an ebay wheelset that is more chewed up than I expected, and I may try to return. But was curious about the tires Does the rolling resistance test really have any validity? .

  53. #153
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,422
    Quote Originally Posted by impatient
    I just accidently ended up with a pair of Mibro 2.25's. I checked your German testing and they are about the lowest rolling resistance in the group. Is that for real? ...
    The Mibro's have lots of opportunity to roll fast. They are a very clever design. The open middle allows the carcass to flex easily there, which will lower RR. Also, the soft rubber is in the middle, and the soft rubber conforms to the terrain easier than a hard rubber, again for better RR. Then, the higher rebound, hard rubber is on the sides, and more importantly on the sides of the carcass, where you want the rubber to spring back and give energy back for lower RR.

    So, in theory, they have a lot going for them.

    P

  54. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    good news everyone:

    there will be new tests in the BIKE available from 13.1.2009. i will edit the results immediatly.

  55. #155
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Great, thanks henryhb!
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Holdsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    42
    Great stats very useful to me trying so hard to find the right tyre for my terrian

    Thanks

  57. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    short news:

    tested tires are

    geax gato 2,1
    hutchinson cobra air light 2.25
    onza canis 2,25
    onza ibex dh 2,4
    specialized fast trak 2,0
    specialized sauserwind 2bliss 2,0
    vredestein black panther xtrac 2,0
    vredestein spotted cat 2,0

    seven spike tires have been tested, too:

    continental spike claw 240 2,1
    continental spike claw 120 2,1
    kenda klondike xt 2,1
    nokian freddies revenz 2,3
    nokian hakka wxc 2,1
    schwalbe ice spiker pro 2,1
    schwalbe marathon winter 1,75

    i will edit the full test results in the next days. too much work and a sick wife right now...

  58. #158
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks henryb! Best wishes to your wife!
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  59. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Hi Henry,

    Hope you wife is getting better and you'll find some time to post the latest results for us ! There are some new interesting tires in this test !

    Also, when you do, do you think you could include width at casing and thread as Bike usually provides ? It's also an important information to have since we know they always test all the tires at the same pressure on the drum (on which higher pressure / bigger volume gives a "harder tire" and consequently less RR in this specific situation)...

    Thanks in advance !

    Ps : when we get this latest results, I'm thinking I could make an excell table that include all the results and post it here... so I'm really looking forward to your results ;-)))

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    all tires except the ibex dh are CC tires. the ibex dh is a enduro tire.

    wide xx/yy : xx is carcass, yy is lug in mm

    geax gato 2.1
    RR: 28,4 watt
    flattening height: 50cm
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    wide 47,8/50,8mm

    hutchinson cobra air light 2,25
    RR: 26,8 watt
    puncture height: 60cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
    wide 52,7/52,3

    onza canis 2,25
    RR: 36,9 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    wide 51,6/54,3mm

    specialized fast trak lk 2,0
    RR: 26,6 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: a
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
    wide 50,6/49,5mm

    specialized sauserwind 2bliss 2.0
    RR: 38,7 watt
    flattening height: 60cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    wide 49,4/50,9mm

    vredestein black panther xtrac 2,0
    RR: 25,6watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    wide 49,3/48,8mm

    vredestein spotted cat 2,0
    RR: 23,5watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 2/6 (more= the better)
    wide 50,7/51,0mm

    onza ibex dh 2,4
    RR: 41,8watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    wide 54,7/61,6mm

  61. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    38

    tubes?

    henry b - do you know if tubes are installed when non-tubeless tires are tested? How about the tubeless tires? I understand from other threads that tubes add a lot of RR. Be interesting to see how non-tubeless tires test when converted to tubeless. Thanks,

    nmcaseman

  62. #162
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,422
    Interesting that in all those tests not one Michelin tire is tested.

    Doing the 'ol knob plucker-oo test, I've found the rubber to be significantly different on the Dry2 tire, than any other tire I've owned. It's long wearing and (not) grippy on wet like a high durometer rubber, but very flexible like a lower durometer (almost elastic-like). regardless, it grips quite well, and rolls stupid fast. I would love to see how the numbers stack up.

    P

  63. #163
    Mythical Creature
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,851
    Well...?

    Let's see the updated excel spreadsheet!

    Here's Warp's data formatted to read in order (best RR to worst):

    LINK

    Quote Originally Posted by xc-rider
    Hi Henry,

    Hope you wife is getting better and you'll find some time to post the latest results for us ! There are some new interesting tires in this test !

    Also, when you do, do you think you could include width at casing and thread as Bike usually provides ? It's also an important information to have since we know they always test all the tires at the same pressure on the drum (on which higher pressure / bigger volume gives a "harder tire" and consequently less RR in this specific situation)...

    Thanks in advance !

    Ps : when we get this latest results, I'm thinking I could make an excell table that include all the results and post it here... so I'm really looking forward to your results ;-)))
    Last edited by glenzx; 01-28-2009 at 02:49 PM.
    follow me on Twitter!
    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  64. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    Interesting that in all those tests not one Michelin tire is tested.

    Doing the 'ol knob plucker-oo test, I've found the rubber to be significantly different on the Dry2 tire, than any other tire I've owned. It's long wearing and (not) grippy on wet like a high durometer rubber, but very flexible like a lower durometer (almost elastic-like). regardless, it grips quite well, and rolls stupid fast. I would love to see how the numbers stack up.

    P
    i have some results for the

    michelin mountain dry² 2,3:
    RR: 28,7 watt
    flattening height: 75cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    All Mountain tire


    Michelin Mountain X´Treme 2.2 tubeless
    RR: 29,3 watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

  65. #165
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,422
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    i have some results for the

    michelin mountain dry² 2,3:...

    Michelin Mountain X´Treme 2.2 tubeless ...
    Nice one! Thanks Henryhb!

    P

  66. #166
    Ausfahrt - gut!
    Reputation: utheissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    79

    Links to the original test PDFs

    I downloaded PDFs of the tire tests online, looks like they don't have the latest Jan 09 version online yet though.

    Even though these are in German language, they are quite easy to understand if you followed this thread as they use many English terms...or is it because I speak German?
    Just keep in mind that they are testing the rolling resistance on a smooth surface and there might be differences to performance on real dirt surface. They mention this issue themselves actually.

    I thought they could come handy and put them online:
    Sept 08: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...fen_09_08_.pdf
    April 08: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...fung_04_08.pdf
    June 07: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...ifen_06_07.pdf
    July 06: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...ifen_07_06.pdf
    August 03: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...ifen_08_03.pdf

    I currently run 2.1 UST Weirwolfs on both wheels of my Haro VL 120 and the rear one is worn down. I think I am going to switch the front to the rear and the try a Nobby Nic in 2.25 as front tire...

    As soon as I can get the latest test, I will post it as well.

    uli

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ozhoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    47

    Tire Data

    In an attempt to improve on the original spread sheet, I've put this one together. I added weights, and some fancy color coding. And before anyone asks about the pink color, that's just how google interpreted it. I'm sure that some tires are missing and more than likely I buggered a few up, but it's editable by everyone, so feel free to fix it.

    O

  68. #168
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Awesome spreadsheet man, I've bookmarked it.
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  69. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregg K

    The Nevegal is much more difficult to get rolling. Unless I just had three bad days in a row, the Nevegal is an energy sap. I don't think it's due to it's 50+ watts as much as the added half pound per tire. That's a lot of weight to be accelerating.
    i agree
    i have nevgals (2.35's) on my khyber and they dont roll very good at all but as you said they have fantastic grip and thats why i have them

    i think im going to put some Schwalbe Racing Ralph's on my hard tail which currently has nevagals (2.1) which should make riding 100km easier

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Sorry I've been long to be back here.
    I'm finally making the excell file with all the test from Bike Magazin since August 2003.

    I've included all I could which means also tires width at casing and thread. It's interesting to see the evolution over the years --> in 2003, 2.3" tires were almost DH tires, now 2.2 - 2.3 almost are our friendly XC tires ;-)))

    The file on this link includes tests up to July 2005, I'm still working on it to add the tests from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Should be finished by tomorrow, I'll upload the link when updated.

    Here is for now :
    http://rapidshare.com/files/19626026...tests.xls.html

  71. #171
    Unfit Norwegian
    Reputation: Dazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,260
    Thank you! Can't wait to see the newer results. That's where the interesting stuff is. Great work!

  72. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Updated file :

    http://rapidshare.com/files/19630073...tests.xls.html

    The latest are in there... now only missing some from 2006-2007.

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    356

    Didn't work for me........

    Quote Originally Posted by xc-rider
    Updated file :

    http://rapidshare.com/files/19630073...tests.xls.html

    The latest are in there... now only missing some from 2006-2007.
    This is the message I got when tried to upload:

    "This file is neither allocated to a Premium Account, or a Collector's Account, and can therefore only be downloaded 10 times.

    This limit is reached.

    To download this file, the uploader either needs to transfer this file into his/her Collector's Account, or upload the file again. The file can later be moved to a Collector's Account. The uploader just needs to click the delete link of the file to get further information."

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Please try this link and let me know :
    http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=RZRIKEY4

    I still have to find a place where it can stay without any limitations of days or how many time it is downloaded...

    By the way, Henryhb if you are around, could you add the missing information for February 2009 test ??? --> Thorn resistance for Gato, Tpi count for each tire and bike magazin verdict. Thanks a lot in advance.

    I will work on the last ones missing tomorrow morning... but we are getting close to having a complete sum up of all of them (it took me hourssssss... so I hope you guys enjoy ;-))) ).

  75. #175
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,422
    Quote Originally Posted by xc-rider
    I still have to find a place where it can stay without any limitations of days or how many time it is downloaded....
    The "Upload Images" in the posts here allow you to upload .zip documents. So zip it and add to your post.

    P

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    There you go, thanks for the good tip !!!
    Attached Files Attached Files

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ozhoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    47
    I've updated the google version using xc-riders data for the excel impaired folks out there.

    O

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    99
    So using the stats has anyone come up with the "best of" tires for each category?

  79. #179
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,364
    Interesting thread. I understand they can't test traction in a lot of different scenarios, but I have to say that the readings for traction don't match up with our local conditions (where wet stone / wood traction is what counts).

    I remember when nobby nics came out and everyone was raving about them. Suddenly they where on most bikes you would see. It happened to be a rare sunny month, when things came back to normal they disapered very quickly. Those tires are almost dangerous on the wet, they lose traction far quicker then a Nokian NBX or Maxxis (with one of their softer compaunds).

    It's a pity when your local conditions are completely different from the places reviews are done at. You have to take everything with a grain of salt, and rather go with what other local people have found to work.

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    42
    Yeah! I learn more here. Thank you to share the imformation.

  81. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    340
    Is there any information in the test on a Continental Gravity 2.3 and the Continental Vapor Pro 2.1?

    Thanks

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    138

    New question here. WTB Wolverine 1.95

    Has the WTB Wolverine 1.95 been tested yet?

    Thanks, MTB

  83. #183
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,118
    I have 29er Nevegal front and rear, I wonder if it is worth swapping to the RR, or if this thread will make me spend a lot of money for nowt.

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    73
    Hi, iv got some ztr 7000 race rims, 33psi max, i was running NN 1.8 at 30 psi, then the weather changed so i put some RR 2.1 on at 30psi, iv put the NN back on now because at 30psi the 1.8 NN is much much faster and more grip even in the dry, can u confirm this on your tests, any one else found this out yet, if not try it. and let me now.

  85. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevbikemad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Nath01978
    Hi, iv got some ztr 7000 race rims, 33psi max, i was running NN 1.8 at 30 psi, then the weather changed so i put some RR 2.1 on at 30psi, iv put the NN back on now because at 30psi the 1.8 NN is much much faster and more grip even in the dry, can u confirm this on your tests, any one else found this out yet, if not try it. and let me now.
    well, that is the difference between these "tests" and the real world, real trails, real riders. it might get lower results on a drum at a certain PSI, but reality is different in my books.

    i made the mistake of using these "tests" and putting some 2.25 EVO racing ralphs on my wifes bike - slow rolling. tried all sorts of different PSI, different trails, with tubes and tubeless, we both felt they were slow rolling/sluggish. she went back to nokian NBX lites and the difference is HUGE. faster and still good traction.

    so use what you like and know works. a lab is not the right place to review tires.
    Last edited by kevbikemad; 06-05-2009 at 10:55 AM.

  86. #186
    Slow Patrol
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by kevbikemad
    What we see is the DIFFERENCE under load, but does that REALLY tell us which tire uses more or less watts? At least I don' t think so, because we don't know what the TOTAL watts are, we only know the DIFFERENCE between loaded and NOT loaded.

    For example, tire 1 may run at 50 watts with NO load, and 70 watts with load. So 20 watts difference. Which would seem very good.

    Tire 2 may run at 40 watts with NO load, and 65 watts with load. So 25 watts difference. Which would be rated at a higher Rolling Resistance rating using the method of BIKE. But it ACTUALLY has a lower total.

    Am I correct? Please clarify if I have misunderstood how the tests are performed.
    I'll agree with this. The difference measurement can be misleading. This is good info and probably correlates to an absolute resistance at some level but all my legs care about is full absolute resistance cranking up a hill.

  87. #187
    No pain no gain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    87

    Continental Gravity VS. Mountain King

    Two tires which appear to score the highest are the Continental Gravity and the Continental Mountain King.

    does anyone have any real world experience comparing these two tires in a 2.3 Gravity Protection and the 2.4 Mountain King protection on dry, if not rocky terrain. The Mountain kings weigh a little more but are higher volume, and the Gravity has more of a side lug for the corners.

    I have used the Gravity for 1 1/2 years and LOVE them for dry, dusty, rocky conditions. I did my own tire test including Nevegals (terribly slow), WTB Weirwolfs, Rampage (great front tire), Conti Verticals (flats easy), Maxxis Ignitor (small but good), Z max ect. and my favorite for rolling speed, puncture resistance and traction are by far the Continental Gravity but... how does the Gravity Pro compare to a 2.4 Mountain King protection ???

    I only buy protection versions for the Lava rock here in Central Oregon - excellent puncture resistance. I also run Stan's tubeless, and have run them down to 24 psi recently with NO issues on a Bontrager Duster 32 hole rim / industry 9 setup. Gravity seat awesome on this rim with no issues!

    For those that are interested, the Gravity is as tough as they come for puncture resistance unless you move up to a much heavy tire. When I did run tubes, I also never got pinch flats at 28 psi. This is really a great all mountain tire and you can get them at Cambria for around $25. - a steal for this quality of tire. But... is The MK pro better?

  88. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    425

    Any idea...

    ...If the data would be relevant to 29er tires?
    "I can only assume chan slap is what happens when you get assaulted by Jackie Chan. I don't think anybody can prevent that."

  89. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,010
    interesting.
    roccowt.
    rocnbikemeld

  90. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d.n.s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    504
    thanks Henry! Donetsk and Kiev give you our respect!

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d.n.s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    504
    henryhb

    can you please make a test for kenda kinetiks 2,1?

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i dont make the tests. they are made by the german "bike" magazin.
    the kinetiks 2,1 havent been tested.

    good news:
    there are new downhill tires tested! i will edit the stats in the next days.

  93. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i just bought the new bike.

    new tested tires are:

    kenda excavator 2.35
    nokian nbx 2.3
    wtb dissent 2.3
    wtb prowler ss 2.3

    more in the next days

  94. #194
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,422
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    i just bought the new bike.

    new tested tires are:

    kenda excavator 2.35
    nokian nbx 2.3
    wtb dissent 2.3
    wtb prowler ss 2.3

    more in the next days
    That should interesting, the Prowler SS's tread pattern looks a fast roller, but I'll bet it's not.

    Thank HenryHB, I look forward to the info.

    P

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    Couple things to note about these german tests:

    2. From what it seems, the best tires in these German Tests always seem to be the german/euro tires, like schwalbe, continental, etc. Does anyone else find this suspect?
    You read my mind. I was thinking the exact same thing - German Bias?

  96. #196
    Executive User - UK
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    799
    maybe...just maybe Germans build a better tyre!?

    As with all tests, I applaud anyone trying to find a test method which can produce some objective data but actual real world testing is of course the only way to confirm without any doubt which tyre is "best".

    Im very happy to read this data - it provides a good starting point for my own subjective tests.

  97. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    191
    any news on the excavator?

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by vikingboy
    maybe...just maybe Germans build a better tyre!?

    As with all tests, I applaud anyone trying to find a test method which can produce some objective data but actual real world testing is of course the only way to confirm without any doubt which tyre is "best".

    Im very happy to read this data - it provides a good starting point for my own subjective tests.
    I must agree here as this is a good start point. I run the Spec Captain 2.0 which shows like 37 watt rolling resistance. I have tried a few others that have less, but I seeem to end up skidding a lot more.

    No tire is going to make you a good rider. It's bike skills on the down hill and the power output of the engine (you) on the uphills.
    Lead by my Lefty............... right down the trail, no brakes.

  99. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,781
    Anything on the Panaracer XC Fire Pro?

  100. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    the four tires were tested under enduro aspects!

    kenda excavator 2.35
    RR: 41,6
    flattening height: 70
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

    nokian nbx 2.3
    RR: 29,1
    flattening height: 55
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

    wtb dissent 2.3
    RR: 43,4
    flattening height: 62,5
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

    wtb prowler ss 2.3
    RR: 41,5
    flattening height: 75
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 17

Posting Permissions

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