Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 336
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    898
    O.k. I'm German, but I ride an
    - American frame (Scott Scale),
    - American wheelset (ZTR),
    - American sealant (Stans),
    - American/Japanese drive train
    - Swedish car
    and I have a French girl friend ... so don't tell me I'm nationally biased

    ... if the Chinese or Martians made the best tires I wouldn't hesitate a sec to buy one

    For years now Schwalbe always ranks top in all tests, may this be a German or international magazine. They started making MTB tires in the early 80s and have an awful lot of R&D spending. Furthermore, they are family owned specializing on this niche market only. It's simply a good company making good products. And the tests reflect this. This small company wouldn't be European market leader if people were't content with their products.
    By the way, there are hardly any tire ads in those German bike magazines, in no way comparable to the amounts found in US mags.

    I'm in no way affiliated with Schwalbe, just "honor to whom honor is due". I would say the same about Notubes or any other American company who's products I'm convinced of.

  2. #202
    Executive User - UK
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    799
    In order to keep this full of clean objective data and more easily useful to those who use it, can we keep the discussion re the validity of the tests to the separate thread I created here please......Thread to discuss methods and practices used in "Tire test results from german "bike"

    I think both threads have merit but should be separate discussions.

    thanks to OP, again! keep the great info flowing....

  3. #203
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,429
    Fantastic thread. Thanks, Henry!

    Are there any test results available for the Geax Suguaro?
    Whining is not a strategy.

  4. #204
    No pain no gain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    87

    Eskar 2.3

    Henry - Great thread... thanks for a major contribution to the forum. Any information on the Specialized Eskar 2.3 CONTROL 2Bliss?

    Note: in July of 2009, the Eskar side knobs will be made slightly taller than the previous versions (info. from Lees bikes online).

  5. #205
    Old Fart at Play
    Reputation: Titus Maximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    637
    Hmm, verrry interesting! Would someone please tell the Germans about 29ers.
    "... displays the social skills of a barrel cactus." - TNC

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilsonblur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by quax
    O.k. I'm German, but I ride an
    - American frame (Scott Scale),
    - American wheelset (ZTR),
    - American sealant (Stans),
    - American/Japanese drive train
    - Swedish car
    and I have a French girl friend ... so don't tell me I'm nationally biased

    ... if the Chinese or Martians made the best tires I wouldn't hesitate a sec to buy one

    For years now Schwalbe always ranks top in all tests, may this be a German or international magazine. They started making MTB tires in the early 80s and have an awful lot of R&D spending. Furthermore, they are family owned specializing on this niche market only. It's simply a good company making good products. And the tests reflect this. This small company wouldn't be European market leader if people were't content with their products.
    By the way, there are hardly any tire ads in those German bike magazines, in no way comparable to the amounts found in US mags.

    I'm in no way affiliated with Schwalbe, just "honor to whom honor is due". I would say the same about Notubes or any other American company who's products I'm convinced of.

    Ditto I used to be a fan of Continentals but the casings tear easily then I switched to Schwalbe's and love them. The last longer and work as well with better casing integrity. The only time I have had issues with them was on the Teflon coated roots of Les Gets France. No one's tires were working then.
    Narrow is the path to life, few are those who find it.

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i will look for the requested tires in the next days!

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1
    Hello all... I'm currently running Nobby Nic 2.25 UST front and rear on my element 90. This is my only bike and use it for play and race. I have been very happy with the grip these tires have BUT I do notice the rolling resistance at about 20km/h. I'm thinking about trying a racing ralph on the rear but I really like the climbing traction of the Nic. Question - How do the 2.1 Nic UST compare (grip, rolling resistance)? Nokian NBX Lite 2.2 ? Also, I can't help but think that the 2.25 tire might be a bit wide for mavic SL rims (21mm 17c). They feel a little "floppy" at about 27psi but any higher and they don't work as well on the roots. Another reason to go with the 2.1?

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation: getbusyliving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryb02
    Henry - Great thread... thanks for a major contribution to the forum. Any information on the Specialized Eskar 2.3 CONTROL 2Bliss?

    Note: in July of 2009, the Eskar side knobs will be made slightly taller than the previous versions (info. from Lees bikes online).
    I am also interested in the Eskar 2.3 numbers. These came out on top on Mountain Bike Action's tire test for tubeless tires earlier this year (though MBA tests were not this detailed or exhaustive or scientific).

    Thanks Henry for all the work on this. Excellent info.

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Black RONIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,505
    Any data for the 2.1 Nevegal DTC (tube type) and the 2.25 Nobby Nick EVO (tube type)?

    Very nice data, though.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    256
    Hello henryhb, Stans Ravens became very popular, please test them!

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13
    That is interesting. Since I own Mountain King tires, I will use that for an example.

    The mtbr.com reviews of the Mountain King don't match the Lab numbers. The Lab says 'Top Notch'. The Field Testers say 'Average.'

    Reviewing anything, the number of reviews always provides more accurate results about their intrinsic nature. Business pays for information like this.

    You have to wonder about manufacturers that don't read the reviews.

    So testing in the Lab only goes so far. As in verifying that it won't explode under normal conditions for example. A UL rating in America is a Certification that your odds of getting electrocuted are well below 1%.

    Throwing the product to the Wolves is the best way to get an idea of the products qualities.

    The exceptions of course are a really good product with great reviews across the board. Or a really bad one in the opposite direction.

    Don't feel bad it the Lab disagrees with your experience. Or if the Field Tests make you mad.

    To get the best data it is imperative to leave Emotions out of the equation.
    Last edited by machinehead; 09-18-2009 at 06:20 AM.

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5
    I am Swiss and therefore very much exposed to the german magazins - I regularly read their test, incl the ones on tires. Specifically on those there always seems that Schwalbe are the best ones? maybe they really are, however its very suspicious.

    regarding the RR resistance of Nevegal vs. FatAlberts however I can strongly confirm their findings. Formers has an immense RR, led me to replace them by later, although I was very pleased with their traction

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Surfas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    808
    Some old tires test from 2003 German "BIKE" magazine

    "RACE" Tires:
    Continental Twister Supersonic: 1.9" - 330g - 21.9 watts
    Continental Escape Pro : 2.1" - 511g - 28.6 watts
    Hutchinson Scorpion Air Light : 2.0" - 552g - 35.9 watts
    Kenda Klimax Lite 345g : 1.95" - 315g - 28.4 watts
    Michelin Wildgripper Comp S Light : 2.0" - 456g - 25.7 watts
    Nokian Boazbeana X : 1.9" - 426g - 25.7 watts
    Maxxis High Roller R : 2.0" - 452g - 28.3 watts
    Schwalbe Fast Fred QC : 2.0" - 349g - 18.1 watts
    Schwalbe Little Albert Light QC : 2.1" - 490g - 26.3 watts

    "ENDURO" Tires:
    Continental Explorer Pro Tection: 2.1" - 517g - 29.5 watts
    Continental Vertical Pro Tection: 2.3" - 624g - 29.4 watts
    Continental Survival Pro Tection: 2.3" - 686g - 32.6 watts
    Geax Blade 200. 2.0" - 573g - 34.1 watts
    Geax Sturdy: 2.25" - 860g - 30.4 watts
    Hutchinson Mosquito Air: 2.3" - 597g - 35.5 watts
    IRC Serac XC: 2.1" - 574g - 26.8 watts
    Maxxis Harddrive 2.1: 2.1" - 537g - 34.3 watts
    WTB Mutano Raptor: 2.24" - 778g - 43.5 watts
    Maxxis Ignitor / Dynomite: 2.3"/2.35" - 693g/675g - 37.6/36.9 watts
    Michelin Wildgripper FrontS / XL S: 2.1" - 554g - 25.5/24.5 watts
    Michelin Wildgripper Hot S: 2.1" - 681g - 36.7 watts
    Specialized Roll X: 2.0" - 554g - 43.5 watts
    Specialized Enduro Pro: 2.2" - 546g - 31.8 watts
    Nokian NBX 2.1: 2.1" - 595g - 28.3 watts
    Ritchey Z-Max Millenium: 2.35" - 691g - 26.2 watts
    Schwalbe Little Albert Light FO / ORC: 2.1" - 504g - 38.2/30.6 watts
    Schwalbe Fat Albert Light: 2.35" - 680g - 31.9 watts

    And I wear Schwalbe Nobby Nic for more that 2 years, some friends told me that they'll never trade there IRC Serac XC UST.

    Since I try the IRC I tell the same, the German Bike mag tell's that NN had 6/6 in cornering grip/traction, but for my experience the Serac are much better in all, the same in RR and incredibly better in muddy conditions.
    Last edited by Surfas; 12-04-2009 at 07:12 AM.

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    26
    These kind of laboratory test only shows very little about theses tyres.
    There are a lot of important variables that are not been take into account, for example:
    Rider weight
    Interaction between ground an tyre. That depends on the type of soil and the rubber compound.
    Different kind of bikes: full sus, hardtail, rigid
    The way the rider rides.

    I really dont know why so many people are are talking about tyres they hardly know, after reading those silly numbers!!

    If you want to know about tyres: just get out and try them!!!

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    898
    From current issue 02/2010:

    (see first post of this thread for definitions)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Tire test results from german "bike" magazine-bike-2_2010.jpg  

    Last edited by quax; 01-14-2010 at 03:47 AM.

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bullcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,146

    Schwalbe 2010 DH FR lineup!

    nice write ups
    My Sponsor House

    "I dont make memories, I make History."
    CANFIELD - AVALANCHE SUSPENSION - SCHWALBE - TLD

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    36
    I need a little help. I'm looking for tires that rival the Continental Race King in both Speed and Traction but more durable. I heard the Race King died out w/in 6 months of normal usage

    Can someone recommend some tires....

    Thanks
    Last edited by Dragon Of The East; 01-20-2010 at 10:08 PM.

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d-town-3-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    278
    just picked up scwalbes racing rons, taking them out on saturday for first ride. I am running them up front with the race king continentals supersonics in rear. Get back to you with ride report. I am located in New Jersey where you get alot of loose rock so we'll see how they do. Just at first glance the sidewalls seem pretty thin but they are very light so thats the trade off i guess. Good luck, be in touch.

    dt3

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevbikemad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Sonix BOOM!
    I need a little help. I'm looking for tires that rival the Continental Race King in both Speed and Traction but more durable. I heard the Race King died out w/in 6 months of normal usage

    Can someone recommend some tires....

    Thanks

    Racing Palphs 2.25 would probably be the most similar, Rocket Rons offer a little more traction, and are very light but are also paper thin.

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmc71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by d-town-3-
    just picked up scwalbes racing rons, taking them out on saturday for first ride. I am running them up front with the race king continentals supersonics in rear. Get back to you with ride report. I am located in New Jersey where you get alot of loose rock so we'll see how they do. Just at first glance the sidewalls seem pretty thin but they are very light so thats the trade off i guess. Good luck, be in touch.

    dt3
    keep us posted. I'm riding the Conti RK SS front and rear. Thinking of putting a Rocket Ron up front for a little more bite

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtail Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    206
    Does Maxxis and Kenda has anything that can be compare w/ Race King and Racing Ralphs?
    Upgrade what you need, not what you Want.

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtail Rider
    Does Maxxis and Kenda has anything that can be compare w/ Race King and Racing Ralphs?
    I would like to know also, but I think the CrossMark and Small Block 8s is comparable. anyone one else have any opinion on this?

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmc71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Sonix BOOM!
    I would like to know also, but I think the CrossMark and Small Block 8s is comparable. anyone one else have any opinion on this?

    I really didn't care for the SB 8. I think the Race King Supersonic 2.2 blows it away. SB 8 does roll well, but I was spinning out on dry roots let alone wet ones. The RK SS rolls just as well- if not better, eats roots, and has amazing grip. Gotta get the black chili compound though, its magical.

    Yo, d-town-3 you still around? Curious to know how that Rocket Ron front and RK SS rear went for you!!!

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmc71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by quax
    From current issue 02/2010:

    (see first post of this thread for definitions)
    So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Rocket Rons have less rolling resistance than the Racing Ralphs?

    How could that be? The Ro Ro's have larger treads. I have a Ro Ro up front and when I walk my bike that front tire chatters.

  26. #226
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,339
    Quote Originally Posted by tmc71
    So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Rocket Rons have less rolling resistance than the Racing Ralphs?

    How could that be? The Ro Ro's have larger treads. I have a Ro Ro up front and when I walk my bike that front tire chatters.
    It's less about the tread, and more about the casing design & rubber compounds.
    RaRa =67tpi
    RoRo=120tpi

    P

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    631
    Schwalbe’s Racing Ralph sets the benchmark. The brand-new Tubeless variant achieves the lowest ever value of 19,8 Watts, measured by BIKE

    this is on the Schwalbe web site....and we're all good with this right? for the 2.25 EVO? right? or is it as they say the 'tubeless variant'? cheers

    thx

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    Well, be careful with all of this 'fast rubber'. I've found that with Speed King you can lean on turns a reasonable amount - and Speed King is as much into the fast rubber as I'll go. With Race King if you lean the tires will fall out from under you. I had to totally change the way I rode turns on a similar tire (albeit not RK itself), and eventually ditched any tires without somewhat-significant side lugs. Lost a big chunk of skin on my thigh over this issue!

    What I understand of the issue is that if the profile is round you can't lean, if it has large side lugs that present more of a square profile then you can lean.

    This principle is what lead to tires like the Twister Supersonic

    http://www.conti-online.com/generato...wister_en.html

    That has a fast top part, but will also take turns, it has the square type profile. I think I'd rather use that than RaceKing, but hey, I'm not winning any races.

    So, just throwing out a warning...

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dex11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    342
    What kind off terrain did you use those RaceKing's ?
    And what size ? The 2.0 sucks, but the 2.2 rocks.
    Its my favorite tire !
    There is a lot off difference between the Supersonic version and the "normal" one.
    The Black Chili compound makes all the difference, and because off the big volume
    they have you need to run them low on pressure.

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    Do you lean on turns a lot? Try a mountain king for 4 rides, lean a lot, and then go back Race Kings. It might just be a matter of getting used to it and biking within those limits that the tire presents. If a person hasn't used Mountain King or another very grippy tire for a while, you may not know what you are missing!

    The time I fell and cut up my leg pretty severely I was on a dirt road that did have lots of small rocks, I leaned a bit, really not a deep lean compared to a banked turn or something, and the bike just fell over!! Wasn't even going that fast. I lean more than that on that exact spot on other tires plenty. My familiarity with that ride and spot was one of the things that made me feel sure the only difference was the tires.

    That said, I've got some super long less-technical rides coming up and I may try them again as these are quite long rides. I'll make sure to do the 2.2 black chili one for those tests! No question they have less rolling resistance!! And I've seen them on marathon race winners, so clearly they are the go-to marathon race tires, perhaps along with some Schwalbe equivalents. But Trail riding? Not so sure.

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Until you try them you will not believe it, but cornering on a race king with black chilli is more predictable than a speed king with large side blocks. Small tread using very soft compound, large casing at low pressure,the race king will change how tires are designed in the future.

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    Cool, yeah, I'll try a pair for those long rides coming up.

    For now, rain rain rain.........

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    dex11 or gvs_nz - what do you suggest, 28 lbs in front and 35 lbs in back?

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Sounds like a good pressure to start then lower until you get it right for your weight. I can get away with 25psi in the front with all my tires. With race kings I can go down to 23 psi on some terrain. On the back I run between 27 and 32 psi. The race king is very hard to find the right pressure. Too high a pressure and this big tire starts bouncing. Too low a pressure and it squirms. It can be only 5psi difference between the two. My geax tires can be run up to 40 psi on the back before they start to feel bouncy and as low as 25 psi on the front before they squirm. I have always found continental tire casings not as good as Geax or Schwalbe to tune.

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    Okay guys, come on. Lets be serious! Braking was horrible - I haven't felt so out of control for a long time! And it did almost exactly what I predicted, very little lateral control, when either the ground is tilted and you are going across it, or you are leaning for a turn. Now - what they are made for, and what they did quite well, is go fast. I got a podium finish on them at a local bike race with many who do amateur racing, and I would use them again. I have a 100 coming up at the end of the summer, and may well use them there.

    But lets not confuse these things with actual mountain biking . Fireroad racing/riding is one thing, but mountain biking itself to me means obstacles that are hard to get around. The rule my friends and I used to use in the early 90s was, if you can do it with no hands then you are road biking (regardless of what your bike looks like). Race Kings are not suitable for actual Trail or cerainly not AM riding from what I can tell. That said, a pro would perhaps be just fine on them in any conditions, but I personally need what the MKs provide - traction!

    Here is what I want you guys to do - go buy a 2.4 Mountain King for front, and a 2.2 Mountain King for rear. Watch out for the really cheap version, I'm pretty sure they are black chili, but you may have to go protection vs supersonic. Go find some harder trails - and this is important, go faster on them! And lean over more here and there. If you stay in the same comfort zone you may have developed with Race Kings you won't notice the difference. Go significantly faster. Lean more. Really!

    I bought your tires, used them for a month. Even raced on them. Now its your turn!

    To be clear, because those were somewhat strong words: the Race Kings are darn fast. Really fast. Really really light, too. Holding it up next to the Mountain King 2.4 protection makes one laugh quite a bit. I would absolutely use them again. However, you can't lean over unless you are on the road or they slip out, unlike mountain kings, and braking is much worse. Overall control in tough, technical steep downhills is low.

    Just for fun, try the MK and let me know what you think!


    Oh - and I do see what you were referring to in terms of a different design. They are super-high volume. One of you said it, but you don't really get in until they are mounted. They are gigantic volume!! 2 things I could have done to make them ride a bit better, mount the rear backwards to try and get a little more braking bite out of the center knobs (but looking at the knob, its only going to help so much) and running tubeless. The non-UST 2.2 supersonic somehow seem like they would best be utilized tubeless, they would really be able to deform and take the shape of the path. Oh - and that is something, perhaps they grip 10X better than other fast-rolling designs at 3 or 2 or 1 mph because of my last point about tubeless + high volume and all that, but at 10 mph they still don't seem to lean well. They gave way many times during the month. And I was riding latex tubes, which are around 50% of the way to tubeless over butyl in terms of increased ability to deform (not in terms of rolling resistance), but still could have gone tubeless.

    So those were my thoughts...

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,719
    Quote Originally Posted by LightMiner
    Here is what I want you guys to do - go buy a 2.4 Mountain King for front, and a 2.2 Mountain King for rear. Watch out for the really cheap version, I'm pretty sure they are black chili, but you may have to go protection vs supersonic. Go find some harder trails - and this is important, go faster on them!
    I ride both the Race King 2.2 SS and the Mountain King 2.2 SS, and am quite familiar with how both ride. I ride fast, and am happiest on fast, twisty singletrack. My trails have a combination of hardpack, rocks, roots, and loamy bits thrown in.

    The two tires like to be ridden differently. The best I can put it, is the MK likes to be steered more, while the RK likes to be leaned more.

    - With the MK I stay more on top of the bike and use more bar input, and the tire likes to be driven more with more input. I also notice more feedback from the MK. It provides excellent climbing traction, but likes to squirm when leaned hard, and will wash unexpectedly from time to time. The MK seems to roll a little faster than the RK.

    - The RK took me a couple miles to figure out. The first thing I noticed is it felt more vague than the MK. My normal technique of driving the tire hard and staying on top of it didn't seem to work very well. The tire seems to perform best when you simply set it on the line you want and just let the tire run. I could just throw the bike into a lean and it would hold on and roll. Where I noticed the RK to be significantly weaker than the MK were the soupy, slick mud puddles, where the RK would slide out, but even those were quite predictable. Let me also mention it makes my hardtail quite a bit more comfy to ride. All in all, I like the RK better.

    In your case, I think it might just be a matter of your technique not meshing well with the RK, which just goes back to "ride what works".

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by LightMiner
    Okay guys, come on. Lets be serious! Braking was horrible - I haven't felt so out of control for a long time! And it did almost exactly what I predicted, very little lateral control, when either the ground is tilted and you are going across it, or you are leaning for a turn. Now - what they are made for, and what they did quite well, is go fast. I got a podium finish on them at a local bike race with many who do amateur racing, and I would use them again. I have a 100 coming up at the end of the summer, and may well use them there.

    But lets not confuse these things with actual mountain biking . Fireroad racing/riding is one thing, but mountain biking itself to me means obstacles that are hard to get around. The rule my friends and I used to use in the early 90s was, if you can do it with no hands then you are road biking (regardless of what your bike looks like). Race Kings are not suitable for actual Trail or certainly not AM riding from what I can tell. That said, a pro would perhaps be just fine on them in any conditions, but I personally need what the MKs provide - traction!

    Here is what I want you guys to do - go buy a 2.4 Mountain King for front, and a 2.2 Mountain King for rear. Watch out for the really cheap version, I'm pretty sure they are black chili, but you may have to go protection vs supersonic. Go find some harder trails - and this is important, go faster on them! And lean over more here and there. If you stay in the same comfort zone you may have developed with Race Kings you won't notice the difference. Go significantly faster. Lean more. Really!

    I bought your tires, used them for a month. Even raced on them. Now its your turn!

    To be clear, because those were somewhat strong words: the Race Kings are darn fast. Really fast. Really really light, too. Holding it up next to the Mountain King 2.4 protection makes one laugh quite a bit. I would absolutely use them again. However, you can't lean over unless you are on the road or they slip out, unlike mountain kings, and braking is much worse. Overall control in tough, technical steep downhills is low.

    Just for fun, try the MK and let me know what you think!


    Oh - and I do see what you were referring to in terms of a different design. They are super-high volume. One of you said it, but you don't really get in until they are mounted. They are gigantic volume!! 2 things I could have done to make them ride a bit better, mount the rear backwards to try and get a little more braking bite out of the center knobs (but looking at the knob, its only going to help so much) and running tubeless. The non-UST 2.2 supersonic somehow seem like they would best be utilized tubeless, they would really be able to deform and take the shape of the path. Oh - and that is something, perhaps they grip 10X better than other fast-rolling designs at 3 or 2 or 1 mph because of my last point about tubeless + high volume and all that, but at 10 mph they still don't seem to lean well. They gave way many times during the month. And I was riding latex tubes, which are around 50% of the way to tubeless over butyl in terms of increased ability to deform (not in terms of rolling resistance), but still could have gone tubeless.

    So those were my thoughts...
    You were originally talking about speedkings not mountankings. I've tried them all. I have Mk, SK in all sizes and Rk 2.2.

    I'll race using RK supersoinic front and rear in nearly all conditions, until it it just gets too loose. Keep out of the deep loose or muddy stuff on off camber corners or ruts and your fine. With low enough pressure[ 20 to 25 psi] they have a very tactile grippy feel.If they do slide it is controllable. if you get into deep loose off cambered stuff you will go down fast though.
    My SK' s and MK2.2 don't get used any more.
    SK's and Rk's are both not trail A/M tires. But Sk's are not a good tire at all.The side knobs are too tall and squirm in hard pack conditions. Even more than the MK 2.4 which also suffers from the same problem. It either bounces all over the place or squirms. I can't get the right pressure to run it. I only ever use it as a rear tire in sticky mud because it sheds mud well. It's plain scary in the front! Can't tell what it's going to do.Slide, grip or squirm.
    Even though it has low tread height the RK supersonic,at low pressure, is far superior in hardpack and light loose over hard , and wet[ not deep mud] conditions.Brilliant over wet tree roots and wet slick hardpack and rocks. SK sucks in all these conditions.
    The MK 2.2 is too small and harsh which slows you down in rough conditions.
    Good to see Conti is bringing out the Mountain X which looks like a good compromise.A Rocket Ron with black chilli.

    For trail A/M tires I use Nobby NIC 2.4 with snakeskin at low pressure[20 psi]. Superior to a Mountain King 2.4 until it gets very muddy then MK 2.4 is better. Wouldn't even consider using a SK as a trail A/M tire. Would use Race king in some conditions though.
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 06-13-2010 at 05:21 PM.

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    One more comment. It, of course, depends what you are riding on! There is a decent amount of fireroad here with little tiny tiny rocks, or super-large sand, and that is one example of the kind of the any tire without very large side blocks will slide out on. If we were talking just about dirt itself, that grips better, more like asphalt, where a rounded profile will do just great.

    That may be part of the different opinions... For places with very tiny gravel over a fireroad, it is the big lugs that dig under the surface of what are basically marbles, and grips on the real road. Rounded sides just slip on the little marbles, and over you go.

    Lastly, I hate super-fast fireroad descents. All I can think about is falling... I don't mind super-steep technical dowhnills but on those fireroads people get going sooo fast. One person died on a trail I do a lot here a few years ago, went off the side and into a metal power-pole.

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Here's more from BIKE Free Ride mag 3/10
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Tire test results from german "bike" magazine-freeride-tires.jpg  


  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    good news, everyone!
    i just bought the latest BIKE with some new tire tests!
    they have tested the first 29er tires, too.
    i have a lot to do at work right now- i hope, that i can edit the results next week.

    the tested tires are:

    conti mountain king 2.2 race sport
    conti x-king 2.2 race sport
    maxxis icon 2.2
    schwalbe rocek ron 2.25 evo
    specialized renegade 2.1 s-works
    bontrager xr4 2.35 team issue
    conti mountain king 2.2 protection
    schwalbe nobby nic 2.4 evo
    conti rubber queen (trail king outside germany) 2.4
    maxxis ardent 2.6
    onza ibex 2.4
    schwalbe fat albert front&rear 2.4

    and as 29er

    conti race king 2.2
    maxxis ikon 2.2
    schwalbe racing ralph 2.25 evo
    specialized renegade 1.95 s-works

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Great. keep up the good work.

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Henry, so looking forward to seeing the latest results with 29er tires... please update !!! :-)))

  43. #243
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    hopefully there is a weirwolf coming soon to

  44. #244
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    79
    Interesting how the Michelin Comp S Light is still rated very highly but I never see them anymore, in shops or on the trail. Ben's Cycle has 'em for $22.

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    79
    I'd like to see how the Racing Ralph 2.4" compares to the 2.2".

  46. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    henryhb,

    Where are you ? You made some teasing by saying the was this test with very interesting tires, now we are all very eager to see the results !!! Please come back ;-)

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    not much time- to much work. so some short informations

    29er tires (all tires are cc/race tires, the cornering and traction points are all rated for cc/race tires)

    conti race king 2.2

    32,2w
    cornering 8/12
    traktion 5/12
    "no black chili, so a high weight, high rolling resistance"


    maxxis ikon 2.2

    32,9w
    cornering 11/12
    traction 7/12
    "good cornering, good on gravel. good for dry conditions"


    schwalbe racing ralph 2.25 evo

    26,6w
    cornering 10/12
    traction 8/12
    "best choice for marathon or cc races" test winner of these four tires.


    specialized renegade 1.95 s-works

    26,9w
    cornering 8/12
    traction 6/12
    " pure dry condition tire, not good for wet or loose underground"

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Thanks Henry,

    If you don't have time for a complete write-up, scan-me the pages and I'll make it for you and update the excell table which contains all the results for everybody.
    I'll PM you.

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    16
    are not taken into account the parameters of the soil: dirt, sand and more.
    And not before Michelin ...
    Moreover, there are doubts about the objectivity, for example the leaders of reliability tests Adak in 2007 (the periods of 1-3 years, 3-5 years and more), there were a lot of Japanese cars, and in 2008 there was a lot of Germans .. . It's a strange ...

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation: painless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    118
    Do any have tests of UST tyres?
    Signature

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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
  •