Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 251 to 300 of 336
  1. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation: melbatoast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    31
    did they test the Maxxis Ardent?
    GET IT DIRTY

  2. #252
    CTB
    CTB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    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
    I look forward to the Conti X-King info! Thanks for your work, Henry!

  3. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    You can download the report in German.
    http://translate.googleusercontent.c...WXfIFPrksj7ohg

  4. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14

    small block 8

    Can the sb8 rolling res really be up in the 30's with tread that small?
    I'm a new racer and was going to use the sb8 but there must be better choices if thats the case. Any imput very welcome!

  5. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by athomedale
    Can the sb8 rolling res really be up in the 30's with tread that small?
    I'm a new racer and was going to use the sb8 but there must be better choices if thats the case. Any imput very welcome!
    How the casing is constructed is a bigger factor. Look at how many tires with fairly big, squirmy knobs still score pretty well on RR tests.

    So yes, if you want to go fast there are definitely better choices.

  6. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation: getbusyliving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by athomedale
    Can the sb8 rolling res really be up in the 30's with tread that small?
    I'm a new racer and was going to use the sb8 but there must be better choices if thats the case. Any imput very welcome!
    Take these results with a grain of salt, as the test is done on "paved-like" surface, so the real life dirt experience may be quite different. I only race a couple times a year in sport category, so no expert, but all I can say is when I take my usual trail nobbies off and install the SB8's for races, they feel SUPER fast, and have pretty good grip too.

  7. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14
    I do want to go fast!
    Well I just started racing and did an xc race that was only 75 minutes but i'm doing 4 long events this summer, 1 60mile, 1 50mile, 1 30mile, and a 24 hour two man team race. So i'm looking for something light that will seal up with stans and roll well for hardpack forest to dry conditions. I want grip like everybody but I think for endurance events I'm just as concerned about rolling well.
    Any sugestions?

  8. #258
    Supersonic Garfield
    Reputation: Trond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    554
    Thanks for the great uploads.kinda disappointed with 29x2.2 Maxxis Ikon Watt measurement. I'd thought it would be faster than the Crossmark and comperative to the Racing Ralph.

  9. #259
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    28
    are those racing ralph the new pacestar TL rdy type? snakeskin?

    wanted to get the maxxis ikon 29x2.2 but now i'm not sure if i should get the racing ralph 29er instead..
    can they fit the Stans Notube ZTR Crest 29er rims?

  10. #260
    The Cheater
    Reputation: Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    551
    Now that the Ikon's RR is out, I'd like to see Kenda Slant Six's...
    Titux X Carbon 2010 race 9.93kg
    Titux X 2009 "Deore 2012" training 11.55kg

  11. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    Did we ever get X-King numbers?

  12. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3
    Has anyone heard how the Michelin WildGripR tires rate?

  13. #263
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3

    Michelin WildGripR

    I just bought the WildGripR tires. While looking at reviews on line one review said they make a good rear tire. Is there a difference between front and back tires and are these not made as a front tire? I'm also wondering if the tires can be installed either way or is there a dedicated rotation direction.

  14. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by PureBlue0229 View Post
    I just bought the WildGripR tires. While looking at reviews on line one review said they make a good rear tire. Is there a difference between front and back tires and are these not made as a front tire? I'm also wondering if the tires can be installed either way or is there a dedicated rotation direction.
    Normally if tires are directional you will see the little arrow on the side wall showing the direction. As well yes some tires are made for just the front or just the rear. Others can be used for both but you have to run them in different directions. There are so many different rules for tires!

  15. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3

    Tire direction

    Thanks for the info, but what do you mean run them in different directions?

  16. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by LightMiner View Post
    Did we ever get X-King numbers?
    Not too bad actually.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Tire test results from german "bike" magazine-german_tire_test.jpg  


  17. #267
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,350
    Quote Originally Posted by ritoh View Post
    Not too bad actually.
    ritoh, if you have all the numbers as a spreadsheet, can you output a PDF or Zip it up and upload as an image to a post?

    Unfortunately, someone ruined the Google doc and all the numbers are off. If you upload a PDF or zip we can have correct data in one place.

    Thanks,

    P

  18. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    29
    I'm not sure if I have all of the tires (that were on the previous list) on there, but here you go.

    If anyone wants to create/maintain the spreadsheet on Google Docs, PM me and I'll send you the excel file.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  19. #269
    mountain biker
    Reputation: slyfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by PureBlue0229 View Post
    Thanks for the info, but what do you mean run them in different directions?
    as Mishtar said, there's an arrow on the sidewall that indicates the direction to run the tire as a front tire or as a rear tire. essentially if you flip it 180° it changes the direction of the tread.

    when I got my wild gripp'r advanced I ran them in the rear in the indicated direction. i wasn't impressed at all. They would slide out really easily of off camber roots. I ended up unseating the tire landing badly off a small drop (on an Arch rim), and re-installed them in the opposite direction by mistake. But, I was astounded in the difference in traction, especially in off-camber situations. there's maybe a little less grip in wide-open sweeping turns, but it still rails a corner beautifully. I will also add that its a very supple tire. I'm used to running 60tpi UST tires, usually with 32 psi. this tire is 120 tpi and i suspect the sidewalls are fairly thin. I find it's pinching a lot more over roots and rocks, so i have to run much more pressure (38 psi - which may have led to my blowing it off the rim). I'm still not 100% sold on them for my desired use.

    oh, and another thing, they're a big 2.25. I measured them at 44mm sidewall to sidewall on my Arch rim, whereas my 2.3 Specialized Eskar measured in at 41mm on the same rim.
    Last edited by slyfink; 07-20-2011 at 09:21 AM.
    continuous growth is the strategy of a cancer cell.

  20. #270
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,350
    Quote Originally Posted by ritoh View Post
    I'm not sure if I have all of the tires (that were on the previous list) on there, but here you go.

    If anyone wants to create/maintain the spreadsheet on Google Docs, PM me and I'll send you the excel file.
    Thanks ritoh!

    P

  21. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Trond View Post
    Thanks for the great uploads.kinda disappointed with 29x2.2 Maxxis Ikon Watt measurement. I'd thought it would be faster than the Crossmark and comperative to the Racing Ralph.
    It actually is faster than the CrossMark in real-world conditions. As I understand it, the rolling resistance testing is done on a smooth roller at a single pressure and a single load. Far from the best method to measure RR of mtb tires.

    Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  22. #272
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    It actually is faster than the CrossMark in real-world conditions. As I understand it, the rolling resistance testing is done on a smooth roller at a single pressure and a single load. Far from the best method to measure RR of mtb tires.

    Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...
    Yeah, ordinarily I'd hesitate to question test results that seem at odds with perception, but I've got to agree here. A smooth roller test won't give a very complete picture but it should at least show something interesting, yet it doesn't appear to do that. How does the Ikon test so poorly when it seems to roll so well?

  23. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by PureBlue0229 View Post
    Has anyone heard how the Michelin WildGripR tires rate?
    They tested the 2.1 and gave it similar rolling resistance to Racing Ralph 2.25. And that's the std 67 tpi version. I believe the 127 softer rubber version is slower.Don't believe all you read about requiring 127 tpi for a fast tire. The low Tpi is heavier though.
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 08-09-2011 at 05:23 PM.

  24. #274
    mountain biker
    Reputation: slyfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    They tested the 2.1 and gave it similar rolling resistance to Racing Ralph 2.25.
    Just a quick update of my Wild Grip'R Advanced. I've run it a dozen or so more rides now since my last post. Things have been really dry here in the North East so I still can't comment on outright grip in the wet. I've settled on 36 or 37 psi and seem to have found the sweet spot for the tire. I'm still running on my back wheel mounted in the front tire direction (i,e, backwards from the recommended direction for the back wheel). I'm very impressed with how fast it rolls. I can really notice it when coasting behind my buddies. I catch up to them pretty quick. Cornering grip is outstanding. I can lean on the knobs and really hold a line, and yet it "cutties" really nicely and then finds grip once you hit the apex of the turn. I also have no worries throwing it into a flat corner because I know those side knobs will catch me and hold me up. very confidence inspiring. I also find that in this direction, I have no more problems with off-camber roots and rocks.

    So far, this has proven to be a really good dry conditions tire. Looks like there'll be a bit of rain next week, I'll see how it does in the wet then.
    Last edited by slyfink; 08-10-2011 at 07:16 AM.
    continuous growth is the strategy of a cancer cell.

  25. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Hold your breath. Things turn ugly on wet tree roots with the standard rubber version.

  26. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4
    Please someone post result for Hans Dampf from Bike magazin 8/11. Thanks

  27. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4
    Hans Dampf PaceStar - 29.7W
    Hans Dampf TrailStar - 41.8W

  28. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlok View Post
    Hans Dampf PaceStar - 29.7W
    Hans Dampf TrailStar - 41.8W
    But it only comes in TrailStar.

    Hans Dampf | Schwalbe North America

  29. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4
    In a few weeks will be pacestar version in shops...

  30. #280
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Mlok View Post
    In a few weeks will be pacestar version in shops...
    I'm trying to figure out when my next smooth metal roller or XC race on pavement is on the race schedule so I can get my Racing Ralphs aired up and ready for that. Not to mention, I need to figure out how to apply even pressure on the tires to achieve optimum performance.

  31. #281
    just ride
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    643
    Panaracer FR 2.4 vs Nobby Nic 2.4

    I'm guessing the FR has more RR? Do you guys know if it is pass 30 RR? Thx

  32. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Trond View Post
    Thanks for the great uploads.kinda disappointed with 29x2.2 Maxxis Ikon Watt measurement. I'd thought it would be faster than the Crossmark and comperative to the Racing Ralph.
    After riding the IKON a few times I agree with the test result. I found that the Ralph rolls way better than the IKON. This was noticed by my training partner too.

  33. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    378
    The top rolling-resistance tire is tubeless - do they test ones marked as tubeless?

    The X-King comes in at 25 along with a few others - in the RS version it is tubeless ready, I wonder if some of those 25 ones would be 20 if they were tested with no tube?

    Anyone know definitively if all are done with the same tube, or how they decide which ones to test tubeless?

  34. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    I'm trying to figure out when my next smooth metal roller or XC race on pavement is on the race schedule so I can get my Racing Ralphs aired up and ready for that. Not to mention, I need to figure out how to apply even pressure on the tires to achieve optimum performance.
    This same criticism has been made regarding roller tests and road tires for as long as it's been done, yet recently it's been shown that roller tests correlate strongly with actual road results. I've haven't heard of the same comparisons being done with MTB tires (I'd like to see it) but I see little reason why it wouldn't hold true. Rollers won't demonstrate pneumatic benefits and road riders have to factor that in as well.

  35. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmc1171's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    115
    subscribed

  36. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TX Flash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    63
    Henry,
    Have there been any tests on the updtaed 2012 Schwalbe Racing Ralphs? Schwalbe claims 30g less weight and 20% lower rolling resistance. That would make the rolling resistance on the 2.25 X 29 about 21.3w. Amazing if that is true. I am trying a pair now. They do seem to roll fast already and they are barely broken in. I'm sure they will get faster after a few more rides.

  37. #287
    pk1
    pk1 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    This same criticism has been made regarding roller tests and road tires for as long as it's been done, yet recently it's been shown that roller tests correlate strongly with actual road results. I've haven't heard of the same comparisons being done with MTB tires (I'd like to see it) but I see little reason why it wouldn't hold true. Rollers won't demonstrate pneumatic benefits and road riders have to factor that in as well.
    i'd figure the roller test primarily tests deformation resistance which is consistent on any hard surface. if the surface is uneven (eg rocks/roots) then it just becomes more significant as the tire has to deform massively to roll over a rock smoothly.

    deformation resistance is influenced by the tire compounds and the knob shape more than knob size, including the way the knob shape (and effective size) change as the tire deforms.

    where it falls down for mtb is soft surfaces where the tire and knobs sink into the mud etc and don't need to deform as much. but then traction is what you want to worry about rather than rolling resistance. the resistance you get comes from the tires size and the mud it has to displace to move forwards (hence the debate between wide and grippy or narrow and fast in mud)

    i wouldn't trust these tests as gospel but its useful to put some semi-objective numbers alongside thoughts and opinions, especially in cutting down to a short list to try for yourself

    another point to bear in mind is that both RR and traction can vary significantly for a given tire depending on the pressure in it and the pressure on it - that is to say rider weight. within a sensible range that probably tracks reasonably consistently between different models but sometimes the test pressures will hit right on the sweet spot for one model and well off for another giving a significant discrepancy in results

  38. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Rolling resistance measurements have been done for a long time. Textured rollers and road testing have been tried and, contrary to what many might expect, the results don't change over smooth rollers. What happens is the results become increasingly uncertain and reproducibility is lost.

    The first requirement of any testing is to have confidence in the data. Data that tells you less than you want to know is better than data that tells you nothing.

  39. #289
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Taz8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman086 View Post
    Lets see some figs for the Maxxis Minion 2.35 single plys please!

    Have FUN!

    G MAN

    Anything on the Minion 2.35 single plys yet?

  40. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    26
    Suprised to see very little difference in the tests between the 29 and 26 tires with similiar widths and treads. I thought that in theory the 29er tire would deflect less so should have lower RR but the test don't seem to show that result.

    Also, I wonder if a textured roller would for the case of 29 vs 26 tires show a different result. I read there's a bike testing lab in Finland that uses textured rollers (but unfortunately don't publish these results). I also saw in another test by Schwalbe I think that rolling resistance was highly dependent on ground texture and that for parameters like tire pressure and tire width, on uneven ground like gravel and grass, rolling resistance decreased with increasing width and decreasing tire pressure, opposite from smooth surfaces.

    Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.

  41. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by MrIndy View Post
    Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.
    You can get lab data that demonstrates that larger wheels have lower rolling resistance but that's not really what people are talking about.

  42. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by MrIndy View Post
    Suprised to see very little difference in the tests between the 29 and 26 tires with similiar widths and treads. I thought that in theory the 29er tire would deflect less so should have lower RR but the test don't seem to show that result.

    Also, I wonder if a textured roller would for the case of 29 vs 26 tires show a different result. I read there's a bike testing lab in Finland that uses textured rollers (but unfortunately don't publish these results). I also saw in another test by Schwalbe I think that rolling resistance was highly dependent on ground texture and that for parameters like tire pressure and tire width, on uneven ground like gravel and grass, rolling resistance decreased with increasing width and decreasing tire pressure, opposite from smooth surfaces.

    Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.
    Like narrow tires, Ii would expect 29er tires to have higher rolling resistance on smooth surfaces due to contact patch shape. This doesn't take in to effect roll over effect over obstacles.

  43. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    Like narrow tires, Ii would expect 29er tires to have higher rolling resistance on smooth surfaces due to contact patch shape.
    Rolling resistance is inversely proportional to the square root of wheel diameter.

    Also, drum testing tends to neutralize differences in wheel diameter unless specifically compensated for. Also documented in that article. The Bike Tech Review guys specifically compensate for this in their calculations.

  44. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    36
    Don't happen to have anything on the Panaracer Razer, do you? Great thread, thanks!

  45. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4

    Race Ripost compound

    Does anyone have something about Hutchinson tyres using Race Ripost compound ?
    About Cougar TLR RR 2.25 or Cobra TLR RR 2.25 ?

    Thanks for this post and those technical datas changing from marketing arguments.

  46. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation: painless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    118




    Signature

  47. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation: painless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    118










    Signature

  48. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4
    Thanks to Painless. Technically interesting. Surprised by Continental very good results

  49. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4
    It seems Bike tests above are about tubetype tires.
    The rolling resistance is provided by the tread but also by the sides (?)
    Continental, Schwalbe and Hutchinson have tires in the three versions, tubetype, TLR and tubeless.
    Once again, does any have information about side effect on rolling resistance ?

  50. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Rolling resistance is inversely proportional to the square root of wheel diameter.

    Also, drum testing tends to neutralize differences in wheel diameter unless specifically compensated for. Also documented in that article. The Bike Tech Review guys specifically compensate for this in their calculations.
    That's a little disingenuous.
    Yes for solid wheels. But that is offset by contact patch shape / size in wheels with pneumatic tires.

    Rolling drum test results I've seen show 29er tires slower than than equivalent 26" tires.I presume that is after they have compensated for wheel size? If not then it's just a simple calculation to get the nett result. if they haven't compensated , then your right , it should favour the 29er especially when you take in to account rollover effect of the 29er if using equivalent width tires.
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 03-08-2012 at 01:50 PM.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 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
  •