Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 326
  1. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i will edit some more informations for the tires. due to the fact that i sawed in my left thumb it needs some time...
    the fields of use:

    cc is cross country race
    am is all mountain
    en is enduro
    Last edited by henryhb; 06-15-2008 at 04:34 AM.

  2. #77
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,137
    Hutchinson Python (airlight version)? - curious to see if rubber compound makes a big difference

    Hutchinson Spider Airlight?
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.


    Shorthills Cycling Club

  3. #78
    dcb
    dcb is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    265
    This study back up a gut feeling I've had about an older 2.25 UST Racing Ralph I've had for a while. I keep on switching it out for a lighter tire (not Schwalbes) but I always feel like I've had an increase in rr with the tires I've tried. I feel better riding with a real UST up front.

  4. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    517
    Sorry, didn't read through whole thread, at work...

    Is there the actual data for Rolling resistance? I don't like that it's a ratio between the tire with bike loaded and unloaded.

    For me it should just be a comparison of the loaded values. As a poor rolling resistance value with the bike unloaded would actually make a great rolling resistance ratio the way it is calculated.
    www.mtbiker.ca

    My Rides:
    FSR XC -R7 Platinum - SRAM X7 (26.5lbs)
    Cervelo SLC - SRAM Rival - Reynolds DV46T (16.25 lbs)

  5. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by rkj__
    Hutchinson Python (airlight version)? - curious to see if rubber compound makes a big difference

    Hutchinson Spider Airlight?
    i dont have time right now. i will edit the tested hutchinson tires tomorrow.

  6. #81
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,137
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    i dont have time right now. i will edit the tested hutchinson tires tomorrow.
    Hey, no rush at all. Take your time.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.


    Shorthills Cycling Club

  7. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    269
    How would something with very low knobs like the Vredestein Killerbee do?

  8. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    hutchinson toro
    hutchinson barracuda tubeless light
    vredestein tiger claw

    added

  9. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tkul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    611
    No maxxis highroller...

    would like 2,35 ST and normal 60a

    and yes... french/spanish/us/uk people say good things about french/spanish/us/uk products. it`s normal!
    fat alberts in 2,35 are great in dry condition. they grip and roll very well!in the wet... better forget them!
    Nobby nics 2,4 are my next tires! In VTT Magazine (french) they gave good marks equal to my Highrollers!
    Last edited by Tkul; 06-21-2008 at 01:05 PM.

  10. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Tkul
    No maxxis highroller...
    high roller 2.35 tubeless added!

  11. #86
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    Henry, tell me if you're interested in testing Panaracer Rampages. I have a nearly new set on my rig and I'm in NRW, but will be finalizing my move to Sachsen on Wednesday.

  12. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tkul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    611
    Thank you!
    But I disagree! Highrollers corner MUCH.... MUCH better than Fat Alberts (have both, know what i`m talking about!).

    RR I agree. FAT Alb. roll much better without a doubt!

  13. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: V.P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,699
    Anyone knows how WTB weirwolf 2.5 does in the tests?

    great read btw, thanks to those who contributed!

  14. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Henry, tell me if you're interested in testing Panaracer Rampages. I have a nearly new set on my rig and I'm in NRW, but will be finalizing my move to Sachsen on Wednesday.
    Are you running 2.35 Rampages both front & rear? Are they equally good on front & rear? How do they compare to Nevegals if you can?

  15. #90
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,945
    Quote Originally Posted by V.P.
    Anyone knows how WTB weirwolf 2.5 does in the tests?

    great read btw, thanks to those who contributed!
    I'd be interested in knowing this also...

    As well as:
    - WTB VelociRaptor (2.1) (just bought a pair today - great in soggy/wet/muddy terrain)
    - WTB Weirwolf (2.1)
    - WTB Moto Raptor (2.14 or 2.24)
    - Panaracer Fire XC Pro (2.1)


    To the OP - Great info tough! Thnx for putting together!

  16. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    69
    I live in Germany. ( Iīm a Pneu Yorker though) With the exception of continentals, most of those tires are made in asia. Here is my real life tests. But remember, Schwalbe tires are like Starbucks - everywhere. . I started trying other tires because I was sick of seeing schwalbe EVERYWHERE in every advert, on every bike.

    Racing Ralphs, Maxxis Larsen TT, Ignitors, Monorails and Crossmarks are useless when it is wet,flat out dangerous on wet roots and stumps, but fantastic on dry.

    Nobby Nics are just flat out a good tire, with an old design that rolls MUCH faster on the trails than any test can indicate. It is really a friggin mystery to me, but it is a fast tire.

    Up until this year, I rode only UST with no milk and no tube-not one flat in 2 years after 6000km, 12 marathons including the transalp.
    This year I am on regular tires switching between tubes and stanīs. UST is basically perfect except for the weight.

  17. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    122

    Viva Germany

    Thanks for very interesting stats, just one more request please, if possible the stats for Maxxis Monorail 2.1 UST if available. Cheers

  18. #93
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,945
    Kenda Nevegal 2.1 DTC? (gotta be less RR than the 2.35 (>50watt)

  19. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    56
    So do all of the Racing Ralph 2.25's (Evo, Snakeskin, Tubeless) have the same rolling resistance?

  20. #95
    Ridin' dirty!
    Reputation: cdalemaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,903
    I agree with mostly everyone in here that this study is more of a basic indicator.....How well a tire performs depends on the type of terrain, tire pressure, temperature, riding style etc.
    Years ago a bunch of mountainbikes were tested in Germany and the majority that "Survived" the torture test were US made.....so don't think that they just give German made products good reviews.
    "Common sense isn't always that common!"
    Custom Prophet and Custom Delta V

  21. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i will edit the requested informations later.

  22. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,140
    Great thread.
    Thanks for all the work.
    Btw, Mutanos 2.4 (really about 2.29s) are lighter than the Mutano 2.24s.
    Love the Mutanos 2.4 worn down to simi slicks they still handle pretty well.

    http://www.pricepoint.com/detail.htm?stylePkey=11905

  23. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MISTER FUNKTASTIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    26

    Correct Understanding

    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

    The RR's are just as fast as FF's, or have the same rolling resistance?

    furious fred 2.0
    RR: 19,9watt
    flattening height: 42,5cm
    thorn: e
    cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 2/6 (more= the better)

    racing ralph 2.25 evo TUBELESS 2008
    RR: 19,8 watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

    I did read another article that said the new RR's are faster than the old Fast Freds.
    MISTER FUNKTASTIC

  24. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MISTER FUNKTASTIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    26

    Did I read that right?

    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

    The RR's are just as fast as FF's, or have the same rolling resistance?

    furious fred 2.0
    RR: 19,9watt
    flattening height: 42,5cm
    thorn: e
    cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 2/6 (more= the better)

    racing ralph 2.25 evo TUBELESS 2008
    RR: 19,8 watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

    I did read another article that said the new RR's are faster than the old Fast Freds.
    MISTER FUNKTASTIC

  25. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,980
    Quote Originally Posted by MISTER FUNKTASTIC
    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

    The RR's are just as fast as FF's, or have the same rolling resistance?

    furious fred 2.0
    RR: 19,9watt
    flattening height: 42,5cm
    thorn: e
    cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 2/6 (more= the better)

    racing ralph 2.25 evo TUBELESS 2008
    RR: 19,8 watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

    I did read another article that said the new RR's are faster than the old Fast Freds.
    Yes, in the test envirtonment that is correct. However, How well some tire rolls does matter is you dont have the traction to get up that hill with a little loose gravel.

    If you just went by these tests, the RR woudl be the tire, rolls just as well, and has way better cornering and stability
    Lead by my Lefty............... right down the trail, no brakes.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 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
  •