Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 301 to 336 of 336
  1. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by pat6192 View Post
    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 ?
    Previous testing a few years ago showed about 1 watt lower ghetto tubeless on the drum with a Ra Ra 2.25. That's at that the tested speed, load and tire pressure.Don't know what tube they used .They did tests on tubes and there was about a 5 watt spread between latex and heavier AM butyl tube.

  2. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4
    If we take the results above:
    Rocket Ron 26*2.1 evo 25,9 W
    Rocket Ron 29*2.25 evo 26,4 W
    Theorically the wider Rocket Ron should have less rolling resistance, so it appears with Schwalbe tires 29er have more resistance than 26. The difference is weak...

  3. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    76
    I'm suprise when comparing the Michelin Wild Race'r and Michelin Wild Grip'r

    The heavier AM Grip'r have lower rolling resitance than the XC Race'r. But the Race'r have better grip in turns, wouldn't it be more normal if the results where the other way around. AM tire with better grip and XC tire with lower rolling resistance?

  4. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    104
    I'm surprised by the big difference between between two tires I just compared back-to-back out on the trail: the Captain (39 watts) and the X-King (25 watts). While the X-King did seem to roll easier, it was only a little easier, and I stress LITTLE. I should stated that the Captain was 29x2.2 and the X-King was 29x2.4. That being said, the Captain seems to roll really easy to me, and I've read numerous reviews stating how good they roll considering the amount of grip they provide. Surely there are other parameters (the obvious one being contact surface) that's coming to play here that just can't be re-created in the lab. I dunno, I know this is all very debatable, but I just have a hard time believing these results are applicable to real world use. Or, maybe I'm just not very perceptive when it comes to rolling resistance.

    bk

  5. #305
    Don't be a sheep
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,369
    Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
    "Do not touch the trim"

  6. #306
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet View Post
    Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
    I think it is the other way around. The Euros have been focused on hysteresis for low rolling resistance for a long time. And that includes Michelin (French; using Silica) and Schwalbe with elastic base compound. They have the tradition, and they are the actual tire manufacturing companies with research resources - not a brand that contracts out manufacturing to a tire company.

    Other companies are now bringing their focus on RR and we all benefit.

    Regardless, as stated repeatedly in this thread, this is the best information we have right now and it is much better than Mountain Bike Action's stamp of hyperbole

    P

  7. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    7
    Thats always the same!, it depends on who make the test, if do germans. then germasn tire will win.
    Its simply

    i think the only way to know what tire its best to you its to prove to many tires until you find the tire that fits well on your riding style.

    And whats fit on you, may not fit on your friends.

    Discussion about tires its like football, we will never agree!

  8. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet View Post
    Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
    Other mfgs have also done well. But the tires you may think are fast because of marketing misconception may not do so well. Learn from that. It's mostly about the casing technology not tread height or spacing.

  9. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Mack-tiger View Post
    Thats always the same!, it depends on who make the test, if do germans. then germasn tire will win.
    Its simply
    BS. Typical xenophobia.

  10. #310
    Don't be a sheep
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,369
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    Other mfgs have also done well. But the tires you may think are fast because of marketing misconception may not do so well. Learn from that. It's mostly about the casing technology not tread height or spacing.
    Well that doesn't explain why German, Austrian and Swiss companies also win every other type of test they perform.
    "Do not touch the trim"

  11. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    There's very few other tires they do test. Look at the price and availabilty of tires llike Maxxis in Europe.

    Look at the depth of research that has gone in to the best road tires[European] that have been availalble for what seems like centuries.

    European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
    The fact that they even test tire speeds in their magazines must tell you something. It is useful info but, at the end of the day, it is only one factor in choosing a tire.

    Their Freeride magazine had tires like Maxxis Ardent 2.6 , Specialized Clutch Sx win out over Rubber Queen and Big Betty 2.4 for overall freeride tires and maxxis minion F 2.5 and specialized Chunder and DH 2.3 win against Der Kaiser and Wicked Will.

    It's an off shoot of BIke magazine so they do the same tests on Rolling resistance, cornering traction and puncture resistance.
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 05-19-2012 at 09:05 PM.

  12. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gman086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,259
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    There's very few other tires they do test. Look at the price and availabilty of tires llike Maxxis in Europe.

    Look at the depth of research that has gone in to the best road tires[European] that have been availalble for what seems like centuries.

    European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
    The fact that they even test tire speeds in their magazines must tell you something. It is useful info but, at the end of the day, it is only one factor in choosing a tire.

    Their Freeride magazine had tires like Maxxis Ardent 2.6 , Specialized Clutch Sx win out over Rubber Queen and Big Betty 2.4 for overall freeride tires and maxxis minion F 2.5 and specialized Chunder and DH 2.3 win against Der Kaiser and Wicked Will.

    It's an off shoot of BIke magazine so they do the same tests on Rolling resistance, cornering traction and puncture resistance.
    I remember seeing that. Don't have a link to it do you?

    Thanks,

    G
    "There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!

  13. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    13
    Any reviews yet on the new 2012 Bonty XR4 or Spesh Ground Control ?? Just bought one of each for my all mountain ride.

  14. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
    Yup, that's true and I would like to add that it's not just trail conditions, but also the typical style of riding.

    But... it's not the whole of Europe though. For example, Germany seems to emphasise the physical endurance side of mountainbiking, while France is much more involved in the bike handling side.

    I know this is a gross generalisation, but you get that when you try to pin down bike-cultural differences. What I observe at XC racing events is very clear to me. Again French and German XC events: On one hand 'At your own risk, walk or climb down if you have to', on the other hand 'Everybody has to be able to bike 99,9% of the course safely, or it'll be considered too dangerous and we'll get sued or won't get permissions for next year if someone gets into an accident'.

    So what you end up with in Germany is lots of fireroad climbing/descending and the corresponding Schwalbe/Conti tires. In France: Techy, rocky singletrack and hey, everybody is on something beefier. Much more Hutchinson and Maxxis. Also the German brands, but the UST or snakeskin/protection varieties.

    I do not think there is test bias based on patriotism. German made tires are better at rolling on a rotating solid drum... I just wished they performed more tests like this one from a few years back, but with different brands: Mountain Bike Tyre Rolling Resitance - MtbOnline

    To me, that is still the benchmark test for translating tire characteristics to real world application.

  15. #315
    YT
    YT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    114
    Any info on Maxxis Aspens or Specialiazed Sworks renegades

  16. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    19
    Thanks for posting this data. I can see clearly why all my mates pull away so easily from me on my high rollers. Well thats my excuse from now on

  17. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    Thanks for these.

    That's post 2!

  18. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivet View Post
    Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
    I agree. It's mostly driven by tire manufacturers.

    ************
    xtoph - endorfin

  19. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tally Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    51
    A question. How can nobby nic's (RR.28.0 watt) possibly have a better rolling resistance (be faster rolling) than kendra small block 8's (RR 34.2 watt). Something seems amiss there.
    Last edited by Tally Ho; 01-05-2013 at 08:45 AM.

  20. #320
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Tally Ho View Post
    A question. How can nobby nic's (RR.28.0 watt) possibly have a better rolling resistance (be faster rolling) than kendra small block 8's (RR 34.2 watt). Something seems amiss there.
    I'm not 100% sure that Small Block 8's actually have more rolling resistance than Nobby Nics, but here's how it could be true:

    Rubber Compounds The rolling resistance of a tire primarily is generated from the flexing of the rubber compounds in the tread and sidewall. When rubber flexes, some of that energy is stored (like in a spring) and is returned when it flexes back to its natural, 'unflexed' state. But some of that energy is transformed into heat, and is obviously not returned. Not all rubber compounds are created equally. Schwalbe uses a silica filler in their bicycle tire compounds, and silica compounds generally have less hysteresis than carbon black compounds. The polymer used in the compound also plays an important role in the compound's hysteresis and loss modulus.

    Tread Pattern The tread pattern of a mountain bike tire also plays a role. Imagine a mountain bike tire with tall, widely spaced knobs. As the tire rolls, these knobs come into contact with the ground. They exert regions of high pressure onto the tire's casing, causing additional, localized flex. In addition, tall knobs can 'squirm' and flex as they come into contact with the ground. As explained above, additional flex equates to additional energy loss. The tire's high rate of speed means this is happening pretty fast, resulting in vibration (obviously more noticeable on hard surfaces). This vibration travels through the tire, rim, spokes, and hubs to the bicycle. If you can feel this vibration through the saddle, imagine how much energy is being wasted. Of course on soft surfaces, this is not so much of an issue.

    Now the Nobby Nic obviously has a more aggressive tread pattern than the Small Block 8, so it has this going against it for rolling resistance on a smooth drum. But we know that the Nobby Nic uses a compound that I'm 99% sure has less hysteresis than Kenda's. We also know that the undertread thickness (i.e. the amount of rubber underneath the knobs and on top of the casing) of the Nobby Nic is less than the Small Block 8. So as the tire rolls, less rubber is being flexed. So theoretically, less rubber being flexed and a compound with lower hysteresis equates to less rolling resistance, all other things being equal.


    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    [The Ikon] 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...
    The above is why I question the validity of the magazine's data. I know for a fact that the DHF 26x2.35 has more rolling resistance than the Ikon 26x2.2. So I don't trust their data at all.

    Another issue is that all testing was conducted on a smooth drum at a constant pressure. Do you ride on a completely smooth surface, and do you ride every tire at the same pressure? Neither do I. On a rocky, bumpy surface, a larger (wider) tire run at a lower pressure will be able to absorb the impacts better, and less energy will be transmitted to the bike and rider. On a very rocky, rooty trail a Racing Ralph 2.25 will be faster than a Furious Fred 1.9, even though the FF would have lower rolling resistance on a smooth drum test. And on a loose trail, an aggressive tread pattern is less of a hindrance than on a smooth, hard trail.

    Bottom line Take the Bike Magazine's rolling resistance numbers with a huge grain of salt. Pick the tire that is right for the trail, right for you, and don't sweat a difference of 8 watts of questionable rolling resistance data.
    Last edited by bholwell; 01-05-2013 at 12:08 PM.
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  21. #321
    just ride
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    643
    Can we get a test on WTB Bronson 2.3 for 26"? Thanks!

  22. #322
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,339
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    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...
    The above is why I question the validity of the magazine's data. I know for a fact that the DHF 26x2.35 has more rolling resistance than the Ikon 26x2.2. So I don't trust their data at all.
    German Bike mag have the
    Ikon 2.2 at 32.9w
    Minion 2.35 F/R at 35.9w/39.8w
    which is a fair amount of difference (note that the google doc has been tampered with I have a pre-tampered PDF I'll attach)

    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    Another issue is that all testing was conducted on a smooth drum at a constant pressure. Do you ride on a completely smooth surface, and do you ride every tire at the same pressure? Neither do I. On a rocky, bumpy surface, a larger (wider) tire run at a lower pressure will be able to absorb the impacts better, and less energy will be transmitted to the bike and rider. On a very rocky, rooty trail a Racing Ralph 2.25 will be faster than a Furious Fred 1.9, even though the FF would have lower rolling resistance on a smooth drum test. And on a loose trail, an aggressive tread pattern is less of a hindrance than on a smooth, hard trail.

    Bottom line Take the Bike Magazine's rolling resistance numbers with a huge grain of salt. Pick the tire that is right for the trail, right for you, and don't sweat a difference of 8 watts of questionable rolling resistance data.

    I appreciate your thorough thoughts on the topic, but have to counter that outside of these tests, consumers have no information on RR outside of fads, hearsay and bike media hyperbole. So as flawed as these tests may be they still provide some quality insight for us.

    I'll also say they they are at least trying to create an environment that isolates RR into a metric and is repeatable. Neither is possible to to match our individual riding conditions, styles, pressures, etc.

    In their articles I do believe that they state bigger tires and lower pressures roll better on rough terrain, they even split the categories so your type of riding tires (XC/AM/DH) should not be compared to the other categories (don't compare XC RR to AM RR as it is unrealistic) I believe they also state that a drum is not the real world. (it's been a while) Copy & paste multiple article text into Google translator to read.

    So until we get better data, this is all we've got and my experience with a good rolling tire vs a poor rolling tire has been the difference between coasting on the flats (even light downhills) vs pedaling. So I find RR to be pretty significant.

    But I do think your assertion is a good one: Pick the best tire for you, your riding style, your terrain.

    And I'll accept the +/- 8 watt error range.

    P
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Mr.P; 01-07-2013 at 09:49 AM.

  23. #323
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,278
    Any updates on the list?

  24. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Techspec360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    335
    An updated list would be really cool......did some web searching but couldn't come up with anything.

  25. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    899
    Personally, I find those tests rather meaningless. However, those are the most recent ones. Depending on your German skills you may want to run them through google translate.

    Testbericht über 23 Fahrradreifen verschiedener Dimensionen und Hersteller in MountainBIKE 3/2014

    Testbericht über 11 Fahrradreifen für unterschiedliche Einsatzbereiche in bike 10/2013

    Testbericht über Fahrradreifen in bike 1/2014

  26. #326
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    216
    does the magazine have the rolling resistance (watt) of the 2.4 trail king (rubber queen)?

  27. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    269
    Some new stuff, which might go well to this thread:
    Mountain Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, handlebar, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

  28. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    5,192
    Quote Originally Posted by grumpy old biker View Post
    Some new stuff, which might go well to this thread:
    Mountain Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews
    very interesting read. I like his layout. It's easy to compare.

    He still does not have too many mtb tires, but getting there.
    Lead by my Lefty............... right down the trail, no brakes.

  29. #329
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,012
    love to see some renegades and fastrak

  30. #330
    Dream it, Do it.
    Reputation: Spectre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    988
    Some thoughts on rolling resistance from our recent XC tire test:

    Pacific Northwest Summer 2015 XC Tire Comparison Test: X-King, Rocket Ron, Ardent, Neo-moto, Hans Dampf & Nobby Nic ? DIRT MERCHANT BIKES

    For the rear tire, the factor that was most important to testers was “usable” rolling resistance which I will define. “Usable” rolling resistance was a balance of good rolling resistance with sufficient climbing traction. A good example of how this factor came into play was the climbing performance of the X-King. The X-King was perceived overall as the fastest rolling rear tire, but had a tendency to lose climbing traction on rocks and loose dirt even on the moderate grades of the trails used in this comparison test. The Rocket Ron, in contrast, rolled almost as quickly as the X-King but had unshakeable climbing traction on par with the more aggressive and slower rolling Nobby Nic. Though the X-King was clearly the faster rolling tire, the Rocket Ron’s split times for the uphill segment were only slightly slower than the X-King (and statistically equivalent as the difference was within the statistical margin of error).
    Dirt Merchant Bikes
    www.dirtmerchantbikes.com
    Seattle area dealer for Turner Bikes & Cleary Bikes

  31. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectre View Post
    Some thoughts on rolling resistance from our recent XC tire test:

    Pacific Northwest Summer 2015 XC Tire Comparison Test: X-King, Rocket Ron, Ardent, Neo-moto, Hans Dampf & Nobby Nic ? DIRT MERCHANT BIKES

    For the rear tire, the factor that was most important to testers was “usable” rolling resistance which I will define. “Usable” rolling resistance was a balance of good rolling resistance with sufficient climbing traction. A good example of how this factor came into play was the climbing performance of the X-King. The X-King was perceived overall as the fastest rolling rear tire, but had a tendency to lose climbing traction on rocks and loose dirt even on the moderate grades of the trails used in this comparison test. The Rocket Ron, in contrast, rolled almost as quickly as the X-King but had unshakeable climbing traction on par with the more aggressive and slower rolling Nobby Nic. Though the X-King was clearly the faster rolling tire, the Rocket Ron’s split times for the uphill segment were only slightly slower than the X-King (and statistically equivalent as the difference was within the statistical margin of error).
    Thank you, it is very interesting read even point of view / use of tire is quite different from my use, report has enough information to adjust information to my specific situation.
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, handlebar, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

  32. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectre View Post
    For the rear tire, the factor that was most important to testers was “usable” rolling resistance which I will define.
    It's hard not appreciate the effort you make in producing these subjective tire tests, not to mention the tireless efforts you make in promoting your website here, but you need to stop advancing the idea that you are quantifying your results objectively and by NOT coining terms like "usable rolling resistance" as though you're providing some fundamental metric.

    Rolling resistance is never "usable" anyway so the term is embarrassing, and by using it you are suggesting that rolling resistance is exclusively a rear wheel concern, which it is not, and that it is a dominant one which is not always so.

    A rear tire can have "good" climbing traction and "good" rolling resistance or be bad at both. A rider may care a great deal about rolling resistance but not place a high priority on climbing traction. Combining these two traits into a single metric makes no sense.

    Both tires have rolling resistance; if you want a fast rolling bike you need to pay attention to both ends. The rear matters more but both ends matter.

  33. #333
    meow, meow.
    Reputation: J. Random Psycho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,320
    My first thought was that by usable rolling resistance Spectre means the rolling resistance the tire has at usable (practical) air pressure. For off road that pressure is much lower than the ones that result in least rolling resistance as measured by the smooth drum test linked to above.
    26" rigid SS 4130 BB7 nylon-flats ESI latex-tubes non-lubricated-8spd

  34. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    269
    If usable word is substituted with word tolerable, i think Spectre's thought in that sentence becomes more clear?
    Trek 3700 Disc, frame, wheelset, seatpost, handlebar, fork and rear brake original, rest is upgraded.

  35. #335
    Dream it, Do it.
    Reputation: Spectre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    988
    Several responses:

    1. I am not coining a new metric as you claim. Note that I do not have testers rate "usable" rolling resistance, but rather "climbing traction" and "rolling resistance" separately as you endorse.

    2. I am proposing a new way of looking at rolling resistance instead of the perception of lower rolling resistance always being better.

    3. Whether one tire is a faster climber than another tire can be tested scientifically taking into account all relevant factors, but I don't have the budget to do so. Getting proof that both rolling resistance and climbing traction are important in climbing speed requires a large data collection program of a large sample size of lap times (The same riders ride multiple tires on the same same with random assignment of testing order to eliminate 1st position or early position bias). If test riders consistently have a faster climbing speed on a given tire than on another tire AND enough data is collected for enough riders to have a big enough sample size to show a statistically significant difference, one tire IS faster than another in climbing taking both rolling resistance and climbing traction into account. I don't have the funds to do this level of testing so I present my findings as directional rather than as being supported by statistics.

    4. I measured rolling resistance as a rear tire because it's much more difficult to gauge subjective rolling resistance for a front tire. You can always use the German magazines' measurements of rolling resistance. As with climbing grip for rear tires, cornering traction would matter for a front tire if you are going for the "fastest" tire for a given course rather than just the lowest rolling resistance tire.

    4. I test with 4 other riders (that I do not know personally) to get a broader view on what riders like and don't like. I get what you are saying in that a rider with less power might not be able to break traction easily and might prefer a faster rolling tire, while other super strong riders might want something like a high grip High Roller to maintain enough climbing traction. That is why I don't even try to provide a measurement of "usable" rolling resistance or grip as that will vary by rider.

    6. Within the scope of my funds, I am trying to provide useful evidence of what tires might be faster for our local conditions. Riders buy tires to get specific benefits such as being faster, being able to corner harder. I am looking to find out which tires best convey those benefits.

    7. I have created the best testing methodology that I am able to create with my the level of knowledge that I have. If you look at just about any other magazine tire test, these "tests" are typically the feedback from one rider with no A/B testing component. I welcome feedback on how to make these tests better. As an example, I incorporated lap times into this edition of testing based on feedback that I received from my customer database. I added it in, looked to see if the data triangulated with the other data I collected, and decided to include the data because it did correlate with the other data collected.

    8. My goal as a retailer is to make my customers' experience on a bike better with cost a secondary consideration. Most retailers are just "order takers" for whatever is the hot product of the day. Bike shops used to be the providers of expertise and knowledge and I am building up my business to do that. I want to get my customers to the best experience that they can have with mountain bikes as just as much enjoyment on their part in the buying process. These tire tests are just a part of doing this. I'm interested in sharing as a catalyst to get others' perspectives and to test my own assumptions so I do appreciate your feedback. Thank you.


    My test does note: This is not intended to be a scientific test: Though this test includes quantitative data, the numerical data is intended only to help interpret rider feedback.
    Dirt Merchant Bikes
    www.dirtmerchantbikes.com
    Seattle area dealer for Turner Bikes & Cleary Bikes

  36. #336
    Dream it, Do it.
    Reputation: Spectre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    988
    Exactly, I'm not looking to split hairs, but rather to cut to the chase on what tire might get you to the top of the climb fastest on average. General idea, however it might be phrased, is that climbing traction is also important for climbing speed in addition to rolling resistance. I'm too lazy to write that out multiple times so coined a phrase to describe that idea! I'm not proposing at all that this is rocket science!

    BTW, just to spark more debate (LOL), I also coined a phrase "usable" traction to describe the combination of front tire traction/steering feel/predictability at the limit. You know, race car teams do tire optimization (pressures, compound, suspension geometry) with a human driver at the wheel because there are so many intangibles and compromises that go into what make a tire work well.

    OK, I think I've run out of new phrases.
    Dirt Merchant Bikes
    www.dirtmerchantbikes.com
    Seattle area dealer for Turner Bikes & Cleary Bikes

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Posting Permissions

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