Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 325
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Orca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    306
    again great information. and good report. I browsed through the reports. Although I can not read German, the charts and diagrams gave me a good idea about the final results.

    It would be interested to know who is funding this research. It may be my skeptical mind, but Schewalbe got five stars in all the tires and in all the categories (check the reports on the web). no other tire got all five stars in all the categories. I dont disagree that they make good tires, but so do some other tire manufacturer.
    Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: El_Scottamontes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    207
    Too bad they can't test wear as well. Weigh the tire before the test, weight as in the rolling resistance test, drag the tire in a locked position for a 1/4 mile, then weigh the tire again to determine how much rubber stayed on the road. I go through rear tires at about a 4-1 ration to front tires from spinning on rocks while climbing.

  3. #53
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,678
    Current data in spreadsheet....
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Check my Site

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Orca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    306
    nice work Warp. thanks.
    Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    mibro 2.25
    rolling resistance: 22,3 watt
    flattening height: 50cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

    2.35 nevegal
    RR: more than 50watt
    flattening height: 43,3cm
    cornering stability/ability: 6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    Does this mean the Nevegal requires twice the amount of energy to roll an equivalent distance?

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,362
    Couple things to note about these german tests:

    1. As someone else mentioned, they tend to test rolling resistance on a bike trainer/smooth metal drum. The problem with this is that rolling resistance on a smooth surface does not translate to rolling resistance on the trail. A tire with low comparative rolling resistance on the trainer may have a high one compared to other tires on the trail. And one that is horrible on the trainer may be great on the trail. It's not a linear relationship that the best rolling resistance on a test like this is the best rolling resistance on the trail.

    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?

  7. #57
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,678
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    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?
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

    If you notice, most of the tyres are german. Which could be because they're in Germany and they're evaluating the local market offers. In the end, a mag written in Germany has little market ouside Germany, Austria, Swintzerland and other close countries so evaluating for the market at hand is sensible.

    I don't have any scientific backing... But I find the Schwalbe Nobby Nic to be a much faster tyre than the Nevegal.
    Check my Site

  8. #58
    Flaccid Member
    Reputation: Boyonadyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

    If you notice, most of the tyres are german. Which could be because they're in Germany and they're evaluating the local market offers. In the end, a mag written in Germany has little market ouside Germany, Austria, Swintzerland and other close countries so evaluating for the market at hand is sensible.

    I don't have any scientific backing... But I find the Schwalbe Nobby Nic to be a much faster tyre than the Nevegal.
    As do I. And I'd say that the Fat Albert feels reasonably fast, and loaded with traction, will confirm the Big Betty probably would rate a 7 out of 6 for traction, and that the Mutano Raptor feels pretty fast, faster that a Nobby Nic on pavement, and not as fast on dirt fire road climbs,and indeed it is one squirrely tire at speed on dirt that's loose over hard pack when running in the rear. On buff single track, it rolls awesome, with the best of them.

    Never tried a Racing Ralph 2008, but the numbers sure look good.

  9. #59
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,761
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy

    Never tried a Racing Ralph 2008, but the numbers sure look good.
    the 08 RR rolls just as fast as before IMHO, but corners a tiny bit better than the previous one...it's still easy to amke it drift. but it hangs on a bit longer than before...I prefer it on the rear with a NN on the front on my XC bike..

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

    If you notice, most of the tyres are german. Which could be because they're in Germany and they're evaluating the local market offers. In the end, a mag written in Germany has little market ouside Germany, Austria, Swintzerland and other close countries so evaluating for the market at hand is sensible.

    I don't have any scientific backing... But I find the Schwalbe Nobby Nic to be a much faster tyre than the Nevegal.
    Oh I absolutely agree about US Mags. And that is understandable that they test what's available in their market.

    And I absolutely agree that the Nobby Nic feels faster. However, I still maintain that their "scientific backing" of testing on a steel drum is flawed. The faster tire on the drum will not nescessarily be the faster on the trail.

  11. #61
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,678
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    However, I still maintain that their "scientific backing" of testing on a steel drum is flawed. The faster tire on the drum will not nescessarily be the faster on the trail.
    I wouldn't say it's flawed. While not perfect, it's a good indicator.

    The moment you try to include roughness of the surface in the equation, you're calling for trouble... also, we always complain that this or that evaluation was made for this or that terrain... Well, they eliminate that variable and provide an even testing ground.

    Not perfect? Hell yeah.

    Flawed? Not.

    Of course, you could fit a bike with watt power meters, fit an engine to propel it and avoid rider's power input variation, log data, test on several surfaces, etc.... and that would be kind of perfect.... I doubt even tyre manufacturers do that.
    Check my Site

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    637
    On the Google wattage list a guy (Robert Chung) developed a method to calculate CdA and Crr for time trialers by doing multiple laps on a closed course with a power meter. It should be possible to calculate Crr using the same method on a mountain bike, especially since wind resistance is not as big of a factor.

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: groovastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus
    Does this mean the Nevegal requires twice the amount of energy to roll an equivalent distance?
    No!
    It's just the energy you loose beacuse of a tire traction. You should count in the energy of pushing 10 or more kilos of your bike, and it's perhaps ten times higher than loss of energy caused by tire traction.
    So, I'm gonna make up some numbers, let's say you need 500 W to get your bike moving at certain speed and 22,3 W more to cover the energy loss caused by Mibro (522,3 W all together) and 50 W more for Nevegals (550 W alltogether)
    Hope this helps...

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Orca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    306
    If anybody lived in Germany or familiar with German culture, itís safe to generalize that Germans think highly of their engineering. according to them, their technology is the best. sometimes they are right, sometime they are not. while the tire study (I am reluctant to call it a full on research) is a good source of information, it should be read critically.

    I cannot say if the study is flawed or not. I donít see a good description of the instruments, methods used and description of findings. for example, when one tire gets 4 out of 6 in traction, what type of surface are we talking about (rocks, roots, hardpack, wet, dry, snow?)? Same goes with the cornering.

    I see the use of this study to inform German riders about their tire market. So, itís a good marketing tool. Face it; magazines are in large part a marketing tool. My personal reservation is when we take these findings and try to apply it as a general standard. Such as Nobby Nicks is a faster tire than XYZ. and if Nobby Nick feels faster to you, thats great. but, donít try to push it as a scientifically proven fact. again, trail conditions, climate and other factors are different in America than in most part of Europe (including Germany). So, the tire that will work in German conditions may not be optimal in America.
    Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by groovastic
    No!
    It's just the energy you loose beacuse of a tire traction. You should count in the energy of pushing 10 or more kilos of your bike, and it's perhaps ten times higher than loss of energy caused by tire traction.
    So, I'm gonna make up some numbers, let's say you need 500 W to get your bike moving at certain speed and 22,3 W more to cover the energy loss caused by Mibro (522,3 W all together) and 50 W more for Nevegals (550 W alltogether)
    Hope this helps...

    Thanks! That makes sense.

  16. #66
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Orca
    I cannot say if the study is flawed or not. I donít see a good description of the instruments, methods used and description of findings. for example, when one tire gets 4 out of 6 in traction, what type of surface are we talking about (rocks, roots, hardpack, wet, dry, snow?)? Same goes with the cornering.
    I agree...however if you look at the mags where this tests are..there is usually a good part (at least half a page) describing exactly what you are mentioning.... I can try and find one such example in the pile of german mags I have around..... the description is not super detailed (as one would do for describing a scientific experiment for an article), but it you get a clear idea aout the test conditions involved..

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    22
    @Orca
    I just read one of the posted pdf files and their cornering and traction tests were done was follows:
    All tires were on identical (trail? AM?) bikes.
    Cornering: They hit gravel and hardpack (or whatever they call "forest ground") turns at set speeds, increasing speed until they lost traction.
    Traction: Tested on steep, rooty climbs, and tested braking traction.
    All ratings are relative to the tire category. Race tires are rated according to their standard, and Freeride tires according to theirs, etc. That means that a 5/6 rated AM tire is far superior to a 5/6 rated race tire in actual cornering ability, etc.

    I hope that clears it up a bit, I merely skimmed the article and they really don't give much more info than that.

    Good Dirt!

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    575
    This is a great thread.

    Henry, is there any information on the 2.5 Continental Diesels?

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Three Phase
    This is a great thread.

    Henry, is there any information on the 2.5 Continental Diesels?
    yes. i will edit it!

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: groovastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    101
    Sorry if somebody allready asked this, but what about Conti Speed King?
    And WTB Wolverine?

    Cheers!

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    sorry no wolverine.
    speed king supersonic 2.1 and 2.3 edited

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    That's true

    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus
    Thanks! That makes sense.

    But NOBODY puts out 500 watts for an appreciable amount of time (I.e. > 30 minutes). 300+ is really good for an average sized Mountain Biker, and in that context 25-30 watts is almost 10% of a persons power. That's HUGE.

  23. #73
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,079
    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    But NOBODY puts out 500 watts for an appreciable amount of time (I.e. > 30 minutes). 300+ is really good for an average sized Mountain Biker, and in that context 25-30 watts is almost 10% of a persons power. That's HUGE.
    And just a meager 5 watts difference over an entire ride of 2-3 hours is huge as well. Yep, RR junky here.

    P

  24. #74
    The plough
    Reputation: vmajor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    662
    In my experience, the Fat Albert Dual cannot rate 6/6 for grip. It just does not have that much grip. Not on hard surfaces, especially when wet.

    I used the FA on the rear and still use the Big Betty Triple on the front. FA was inspiring in dry hardpack (excellent braking and cornering) and scary as hell on wet rock and roots. Big Betty fares much better, but it still does not like wet and hard surfaces. My front washed out twice yesterday riding on wet rocks. My new Holy Roller 2.4 on the rear did not so I stayed on my bike.

    It is a little odd. Perhaps they should test the tires in the wet as well.

    V.

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,018
    I've had both the 2.1 UST Ignitor and the 2.35 UST ignitor, and the test results reflect my experience with these tires. Believe it or not, at the same pressure, the wider tire has less rolling resistance. Additionally, the 2.35 did not corner as well as the 2.1, maybe because in the UST version, it is a 70a durometer, where the 2.1 is 62a.

    Another interesting observation is that I had to run 40 PSI+ to ensure I would not ding my rim on rocks with the 2.1, as is evidenced by their low # for the drop test. I run 28PSI in my 2.25 Racing Ralph & 2.25 Nobby Nic, and don't even come close to hitting the rim.


    Quote Originally Posted by womble
    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?

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 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
  •