Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 336
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239

    Tire test results from german "bike" magazine

    puncture height is flattening height:
    the higher the number, the better.
    they test it with a hetchet which falls down from test to test which higher and higher height., for example test 1 40cm, test 2 45cm, test 50 et cetera. the shown value is the first height the tire flattens.
    they test also for thorn proofness with a metal thorn. i will edit that soon too. thorn test isnt available for all tires.
    class a is highest resistance, class f lowest.
    the fields of use:
    cc is cross country race
    am is all mountain
    en is enduro

    RR measurement:
    (bad english incoming!)
    Rolling resistance: All tires are set up with 2,5 bar. Then they are set up on the testing role without load. Then they are accelerated on 20 kilometers per hour. Now the resistance is set to zero to eliminate air resistance and bearing friction. Then the wheel gets loaded with 50kg. After a short time the tire runs again with 20km/h. The difference from unloaded and loaded run results gets the rolling resistance in watt.
    movements in the carcass play a larger role than the tread.


    mibro 2.25
    rolling resistance: 22,3 watt
    flattening height: 50cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

    2.35 nevegal
    RR: more than 50watt
    flattening height: 43,3cm
    cornering stability/ability: 6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)

    nobby nic 2.4 triple
    RR: 28,0 watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: a
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    (update bike 4/08)
    100% am

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

    racing ralph 2.25 triple 2007
    RR: 26,2 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    85% cc 15% am

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

    smart sam 2.1
    RR: 28,9 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    100% cc

    fat albert
    RR: 34,4 watt
    flattening height: 78cm
    thorn: no information
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)

    little albert light (old test from 2004!)
    RR: 32,1 watt
    flattening height:-
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

    big betty 2.4 triple
    RR: 32,2 watt
    flattening height: 110cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    (comment in the bike-test: big betty should have been rated 7/6 in traction and cornering stability)
    15% am 85% ed

    hutchinson python ng mrc medium 2.25
    RR: 36,4watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    15% cc 85% am

    hutchinson barracuda tubeless light
    RR: 35,4watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    100% am

    hutchinson toro 2.15
    RR: 37,6watt
    flattening height: 60cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    30% cc 70% am

    hutchinson piranha mrc medium 2,3
    RR: 40,8 watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 2/6 (more= the better)
    50% cc 50% am

    larsen tt 2,3 exception
    RR: 36,6 watt
    flattening height: 85cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    50% cc 50% am

    mountain king 2.4 protection
    RR: 32,5 watt
    puncture height: 65cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    50% am 50% en

    speed king 2.1 supersonic
    RR: 29,6 watt
    puncture height: 40cm
    thorn: e
    cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    90% cc 10% am

    speed king 2.3 supersonic
    RR: 27,9 watt
    puncture height:50cm
    thorn: e
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    10% cc 90% am

    race king 2.2
    RR: 23,9 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: f
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    85% cc 15% am

    diesel protection
    RR: 43,5 watt
    flattening height: 75cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    100% ed

    explorer 2.1 supersonic
    RR: 28,5 watt
    flattening height: 40cm
    thorn:c
    cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
    100% cc

    specialized the captain 2
    RR: 39,2 watt
    flattening height: 85cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    50% cc 50% am

    specialized resolution 2.1
    RR: 38,5 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    25% cc 75% am

    nokian nbx 2.3
    RR: 26,8 watt
    flattening height: 35cm
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

    maxxis crossmark 2.1 exception
    RR: 27,4 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
    100% cc

    maxxis high roller 2.35 tubeless
    RR: over 45 watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: a
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    100% ed

    maxxis ignitor exception 2.1
    RR: 34,3 watt
    flattening height: 36,7cm
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)

    maxxis ignitor exception 2.35
    RR: 32,3 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

    wtb mutano raptor (tested as all-mountain. maybe because of that only 2/6 cornering points)
    RR: 30,7 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

    kenda karma 2.2
    RR: 41,3 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: e
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    80% am 20% ed

    kenda small block eight 2,1
    RR: 34,2 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

    IRC trailbear 2.25 (2004 tested, got the "bang for the buck" award! (costs about 10€ here in germany)
    RR: 32,5 watt
    flattening height: 41,67cm
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

    vredestein tiger claw 2,1
    RR: 26,2 watt
    flattening height: 67,5cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    45% cc 55% am

    more will be edited later! tell me what you want to know!
    Last edited by henryhb; 06-22-2008 at 01:38 AM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    cornering/ traction points are given compared to tires of the same class.
    here are the new tests:

    CC-Race:

    maxxis monorail exception 2.1
    RR: 26,3 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
    100% cc

    ritchey zmax intuition 2.0 wcs
    RR: 38,2 watt
    flattening height: 45cm
    thorn:d
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    100% cc

    schwalbe rocket ron 2,25 (stats: 436g weight, available in 2.1" and 2.4" and 2.1"/2.25" tubeless)
    RR: 24,7 watt
    flattening height: 52,5cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction:5/6 (more= the better)
    85% cc, 15% am

    wtb wolverine 2.2
    RR: 25,9 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    95% cc, 5% am

    all mountain tires

    continental rubber queen 2.2"
    RR: 29,8 watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    85% am, 15% ed

    ritchey zmax premonition 2.25 wcs
    RR: 35,2 watt
    flattening height: 67,5cm
    thorn: f
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    100% am

    specialized purgatory 2.2 s-works 2bliss
    RR: 37,2 watt
    flattening height: 70cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    85% am, 15% ed

    enduro tires

    continental rubber queen 2.4"
    RR: 42,7 watt
    flattening height: 75cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
    100% ed

    maxxis ardent 2.4" 60a folding
    RR: 36,3 watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    15% am, 85% ed

    schwalbe fat albert 2.4" front and rear
    RR: 29,9 watt
    flattening height: 83,75cm
    thorn: b
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    45% am, 55% ed

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salty 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    249
    Thats tha most USEFUL stats I have seen on tyres...thank you!
    It explains why I like the NN so much.

    Do you have any stats on Racing Ralphs 2.1, Smart Sam, Larsen TT2.0 and Python 2.0??
    Ti Steve

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Salty 1
    Thats tha most USEFUL stats I have seen on tyres...thank you!
    It explains why I like the NN so much.

    Do you have any stats on Racing Ralphs 2.1, Smart Sam, Larsen TT2.0 and Python 2.0??
    there arent all sizes and all tires tested. i edited some requested in the first thread!

  5. #5
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Mountain King?

    Big sizes, if you have.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by perttime
    Mountain King?

    Big sizes, if you have.
    added!

    found newer test results for nobby nic 2.4 triple 2008. edited.
    racing ralph 2008 evo tubeless added

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boybi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    39
    What is puncture height? What's better, higher or lower number?

  8. #8
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,807
    Quote Originally Posted by boybi
    What is puncture height? What's better, higher or lower number?
    it's how high the puncturing object had to be raised to cause the tire to flat....so the higher, the better

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,123
    Very nice.
    I am interested in the methodology of obtaining the RR measurement. Any why does the Nevegal just say "over 50"? Given that those are a very popular tire, the exact data point would be very beneficial!

    I cannot wait to see the Big Betty UST/ Fat Albert/ some of the Specialized lineup included.
    Thanks again!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    421
    It would be interesting to the results of the new Furious fred's?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    176
    And the Race Kings..

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterZero
    Any why does the Nevegal just say "over 50"?
    the measure-equipment can only measure until 50watt rolling resistance. the negeval is the tire tested with the highest rolling resistance.

    fat albert, little albert, big betty, some specialized, race king added.
    there is no test result for furios fred sry

    methodology for RR measurement added!
    Last edited by henryhb; 06-04-2008 at 06:41 AM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,123
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    the measure-equipment can only measure until 50watt rolling resistance. the negeval is the tire tested with the highest rolling resistance.

    fat albert, little albert, big betty, some specialized, race king added.
    there is no test result for furios fred sry

    methodology for RR measurement added!
    Awesome! Those BB and Fat Albert results just show that I should wait for them to come out....
    Do you have results for the Specialized Eskar 2.3, or Chunder 2.2/2.4?
    What about the Maxxis Ignitor?

    Man - these stats are great!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    148
    Excellent thread henryhb ... have you got anything for Panaracer Fire XC Pro (2.1) and the Nokian NBX 2.3?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGiv'er
    Excellent thread henryhb ... have you got anything for Panaracer Fire XC Pro (2.1) and the Nokian NBX 2.3?
    nbx 2,3 added
    no panaracer tested.
    unlikely the fire xc pro is hard to get here in germany. i read a lot of good stuff about it!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    912
    Are the Maxxis Crossmark or Ignitor listed? What is the name or publisher of the bike magazine?
    If you're not falling, then you're not riding fast enough!
    Ibex Asta Pro SE & Giant XTC-2

  17. #17
    mountain biker
    Reputation: slyfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    531
    I'm a little surprised by the "traction" rating for the "Albert" line... I've found them to be a marked downgrade from my Nevegals... They corner like mad, and handle wet roots and rocks like nothing I've used before but in straight braking or straight climbing, I'm finding they slip out much quicker than my old Nevs... And I've got the pressure as low as I dare go on tubeless... I'm running the Albert UST, weigh 210lbs, and run my front tire at 28psi and the rear a 31 psi...
    continuous growth is the strategy of a cancer cell.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by baraant
    Are the Maxxis Crossmark or Ignitor listed? What is the name or publisher of the bike magazine?
    both added!

    the magazine is called "bike"! very creative...
    www.bike-magazin.de

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Ha, the Germans and their tests. Germans are obsessed with the testing performance published sort of like Consumer Reports, but they swear it's not as biased or crooked and the people doing the testing are experts.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    nbx 2,3 added
    no panaracer tested.
    unlikely the fire xc pro is hard to get here in germany. i read a lot of good stuff about it!
    Thank you. The flattening height of 35cm for the Nokian NBX 2.3 seems surprisingly low ... this is not a typo, is it?

  21. #21
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Luckily I put on new Rampages before I moved to Germany. Great tires.

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Hmmm, Any testing of the WTB line of tires yet? I'd be interested in seeing how the whole line tests out, Weirwolves2.5, mutanoraptors 2.4, velocitraptors, motoraptors, etc, plus their new stuff. I run a Mutanoraptor 2.4, on the rear sometimes and rolling resistance wise, it feels close to, maybe not quite as fast as a Fat Albert 2.35 or a Nobby Nic 2.4 in dirt single track. The Mutano feels faster on pavement and fire road while climbing though and kind of loosy goosy at the edges on singletrack in the turns, nowhere near as sticky as a Fat Albert when leaned over.

    I'd love to see the results on a spread sheet format, anyone know how to put it in on Excel? I have "read only" software in Windows Home edition.

  23. #23
    himom!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    684
    Has the Kenda Karma been tested? Thanks so much for the info.

  24. #24
    ZEN RIDER!
    Reputation: Mt.Biker E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    804
    What about posted weights & actual weights?
    I'd figure that would play into ride characteristics & durability.
    Life in every breath

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    there has only been one test for wtb tires.
    wtb mutano raptor and kenda karma added!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Ha, the Germans and their tests. Germans are obsessed with the testing performance published sort of like Consumer Reports, but they swear it's not as biased or crooked and the people doing the testing are experts.
    yes we like tests. we got a powerful neutral organisation called "stiftung warentest" for all kind of products and another one called "ökotest" for ecological tests. they did a lot of good testings which made thousands of products better.
    stuff there is tested by engineers and scientists.

  27. #27
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Believe me, add me to the collective of "we"

    We're going through the tests right now to decide on a (heck) fahrradträger. We saw the Mont Blanc Voyager seems to be well regarded and the Uebler P21 15600 scored well on the tests.

    Now to see which french fries did well on the tests

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: multiaxial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    133

    Data!

    I love it, some actual test data. Thanks for posting. Were the Racing Ralphs the 2007 version or the new 2008 version?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    637
    Any data on the Kenda Small Block 8?
    =========================================
    Minnesota Off Road Cyclists www.morcmtb.org

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGiv'er
    Thank you. The flattening height of 35cm for the Nokian NBX 2.3 seems surprisingly low ... this is not a typo, is it?
    Yeah, I have had no flats with mine. But what might be a factor, the NBX casing is very supple, so maybe for the same pressure they are a bit softer, and happen to flat easier? (at that pressure)

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    271
    Wonderful tread. Lots to be learned from these stats. Looks like the Ralph evo's for XC and Nobby Nics for trail?
    Thanks

  32. #32
    Old man on a bike
    Reputation: Bikinfoolferlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    12,388
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy
    I'd love to see the results on a spread sheet format, anyone know how to put it in on Excel? I have "read only" software in Windows Home edition.
    Go to docs.google.com and do your own.
    "...the people get the government they deserve..."
    suum quique

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,248
    This is great, thanks so much for posting it.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Orca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    306
    very informative thread. looks like I would have to spend more than $50 to get a decent pair of tires these days.

    anyway, the test results look interesting. While they provide a good starting point for deciding about a tire, they are not as conclusive as a comparison tool (at least not in its current format). Just for example, there are two reports on Maxxis ignitors, size 2.1 and 2.35. Interestingly, the bigger tire (2.35) has less rolling resistance, less cornering ability and less traction than its narrower (2.1) counterpart.

    am I missing something. My assumption is a wider tire of the same design/component would have more rolling resistance and traction than its narrower incarnation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    thanks.
    Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose. - Bill Gates

  35. #35
    himom!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Orca
    am I missing something. My assumption is a wider tire of the same design/component would have more rolling resistance and traction than its narrower incarnation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    thanks.
    Depends on what they do with the nubs. Do they make them bigger? Same size but add more? Just space them out farther? Different properties of the carcass?

    The point is that bigger tires aren't always proportionally bigger in all regards.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    228

    Sweet

    How about the Cont. Explorer Super Sonics?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    no small block 8 tested.
    conti explorer supersonic 2.1 added

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    there is allways a conclusion/ bottom line to the tire test with more infos, e.g. "good for wet and soft", "dangerous in corners" etc.
    i will add that for the tires if i have some more time...

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Orca
    very informative thread. looks like I would have to spend more than $50 to get a decent pair of tires these days.
    i´ve added the IRC trailbear. good and cheap tire!
    got the "best bang for the buck" award in the 2004 test. it is maybe not as good as brand new dual or triple compound tires fresh from 2008 but always a good choice when cheap available. here in germany i would prefer the albert or fat albert from schwalbe over the trailbear because they can be bought for 10€ each in the non-folding version.

  40. #40
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Quote Originally Posted by supersleeper
    Wonderful tread. Lots to be learned from these stats. Looks like the Ralph evo's for XC and Nobby Nics for trail?
    Thanks
    RR is pretty good for firm surfaces. NN bites deeper on loose and soft. Lots of people run NN front and RR rear.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    found more tests in bike 11/07.
    schwalbe furious fred and kenda small block eight added!

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    193
    Henryhb you da man - legend!!!

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lumbee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,909
    The Spec Resolution and Captain didn't do to well but I love this combination. I think the Captain rolls excellent for it's size. The Resolution is a touch slower but the grip has been great.

    Then again, I did ride a buddies GT loaded with Nevegals. Those tires stuck to the ground like they were covered in sticky syrup.

  44. #44
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,174
    This result looks kind of weird. The wider Ignitor Exception has lower rolling resistance and less stability and traction?

    What sort of rim did they use for the test?

    maxxis ignitor exception 2.1
    RR: 34,3 watt
    flattening height: 36,7cm
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 6/6 (more= the better)

    maxxis ignitor exception 2.35
    RR: 32,3 watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: -
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    288

    Other test parameters?

    Was a "moment of inertia" and a "flywheel effect" testing also conducted/measured. These two parameters are very important to the testing.
    It appears, from the way that the testing was performed, a heavier tire would show better test results while masking real world weaknesses.
    Please list all of the testing parameters. Otherwise, this "test" appears to be psuedo-science and does not provide valid data that can be scrutinized by the scientific community.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    421
    Any Bontrager tires tested?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    637
    It looks like all their tests are online for free with the exception of the latest one which requires a 2 euro fee:
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...ouren_0606.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...eride_0706.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...eifen_0705.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...ntest_0804.pdf

    I sure wish my German was better.
    Last edited by strader; 06-05-2008 at 11:08 AM.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    mibro edited with 06/06 scorings

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    the tests are done on a smooth drum right?
    So, how a tire rolls on dirt (at various pressures for optimum grip) may not be quite the same.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Conti Vertical 2.3 UST?

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Orca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    306
    again great information. and good report. I browsed through the reports. Although I can not read German, the charts and diagrams gave me a good idea about the final results.

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

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

  53. #53
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,844
    Current data in spreadsheet....
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Check my Site

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

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,780
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    mibro 2.25
    rolling resistance: 22,3 watt
    flattening height: 50cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

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

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,730
    Couple things to note about these german tests:

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

    2. From what it seems, the best tires in these German Tests always seem to be the german/euro tires, like schwalbe, continental, etc. Does anyone else find this suspect?

  57. #57
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,844
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    2. From what it seems, the best tires in these German Tests always seem to be the german/euro tires, like schwalbe, continental, etc. Does anyone else find this suspect?
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

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

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

  58. #58
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

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

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

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

  59. #59
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,807
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy

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

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

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

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

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

  61. #61
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,844
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    However, I still maintain that their "scientific backing" of testing on a steel drum is flawed. The faster tire on the drum will not nescessarily be the faster on the trail.
    I wouldn't say it's flawed. While not perfect, it's a good indicator.

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

    Not perfect? Hell yeah.

    Flawed? Not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,780
    Quote Originally Posted by groovastic
    No!
    It's just the energy you loose beacuse of a tire traction. You should count in the energy of pushing 10 or more kilos of your bike, and it's perhaps ten times higher than loss of energy caused by tire traction.
    So, I'm gonna make up some numbers, let's say you need 500 W to get your bike moving at certain speed and 22,3 W more to cover the energy loss caused by Mibro (522,3 W all together) and 50 W more for Nevegals (550 W alltogether)
    Hope this helps...

    Thanks! That makes sense.

  66. #66
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Orca
    I cannot say if the study is flawed or not. I don’t see a good description of the instruments, methods used and description of findings. for example, when one tire gets 4 out of 6 in traction, what type of surface are we talking about (rocks, roots, hardpack, wet, dry, snow?)? Same goes with the cornering.
    I agree...however if you look at the mags where this tests are..there is usually a good part (at least half a page) describing exactly what you are mentioning.... I can try and find one such example in the pile of german mags I have around..... the description is not super detailed (as one would do for describing a scientific experiment for an article), but it you get a clear idea aout the test conditions involved..

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

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

    Good Dirt!

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

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

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

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

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

    Cheers!

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

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

    That's true

    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus
    Thanks! That makes sense.

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

  73. #73
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,453
    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    But NOBODY puts out 500 watts for an appreciable amount of time (I.e. > 30 minutes). 300+ is really good for an average sized Mountain Biker, and in that context 25-30 watts is almost 10% of a persons power. That's HUGE.
    And just a meager 5 watts difference over an entire ride of 2-3 hours is huge as well. Yep, RR junky here.

    P

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

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

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

    V.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,628
    I've had both the 2.1 UST Ignitor and the 2.35 UST ignitor, and the test results reflect my experience with these tires. Believe it or not, at the same pressure, the wider tire has less rolling resistance. Additionally, the 2.35 did not corner as well as the 2.1, maybe because in the UST version, it is a 70a durometer, where the 2.1 is 62a.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by womble
    This result looks kind of weird. The wider Ignitor Exception has lower rolling resistance and less stability and traction?

    What sort of rim did they use for the test?

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i will edit some more informations for the tires. due to the fact that i sawed in my left thumb it needs some time...
    the fields of use:

    cc is cross country race
    am is all mountain
    en is enduro
    Last edited by henryhb; 06-15-2008 at 03:34 AM.

  77. #77
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    Hutchinson Python (airlight version)? - curious to see if rubber compound makes a big difference

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

  78. #78
    dcb
    dcb is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    269
    This study back up a gut feeling I've had about an older 2.25 UST Racing Ralph I've had for a while. I keep on switching it out for a lighter tire (not Schwalbes) but I always feel like I've had an increase in rr with the tires I've tried. I feel better riding with a real UST up front.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  81. #81
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    i dont have time right now. i will edit the tested hutchinson tires tomorrow.
    Hey, no rush at all. Take your time.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    271
    How would something with very low knobs like the Vredestein Killerbee do?

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

    added

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

    would like 2,35 ST and normal 60a

    and yes... french/spanish/us/uk people say good things about french/spanish/us/uk products. it`s normal!
    fat alberts in 2,35 are great in dry condition. they grip and roll very well!in the wet... better forget them!
    Nobby nics 2,4 are my next tires! In VTT Magazine (french) they gave good marks equal to my Highrollers!
    Last edited by Tkul; 06-21-2008 at 12:05 PM.

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

  86. #86
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,466
    Henry, tell me if you're interested in testing Panaracer Rampages. I have a nearly new set on my rig and I'm in NRW, but will be finalizing my move to Sachsen on Wednesday.

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

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

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: V.P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,704
    Anyone knows how WTB weirwolf 2.5 does in the tests?

    great read btw, thanks to those who contributed!

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Henry, tell me if you're interested in testing Panaracer Rampages. I have a nearly new set on my rig and I'm in NRW, but will be finalizing my move to Sachsen on Wednesday.
    Are you running 2.35 Rampages both front & rear? Are they equally good on front & rear? How do they compare to Nevegals if you can?

  90. #90
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,300
    Quote Originally Posted by V.P.
    Anyone knows how WTB weirwolf 2.5 does in the tests?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Viva Germany

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

  93. #93
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,300
    Kenda Nevegal 2.1 DTC? (gotta be less RR than the 2.35 (>50watt)

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

  95. #95
    Ridin' dirty!
    Reputation: cdalemaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,949
    I agree with mostly everyone in here that this study is more of a basic indicator.....How well a tire performs depends on the type of terrain, tire pressure, temperature, riding style etc.
    Years ago a bunch of mountainbikes were tested in Germany and the majority that "Survived" the torture test were US made.....so don't think that they just give German made products good reviews.
    "Common sense isn't always that common!"
    Custom Prophet and Custom Delta V

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

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

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

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

    Correct Understanding

    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

    Did I read that right?

    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

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

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

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

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

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    5,331
    Quote Originally Posted by MISTER FUNKTASTIC
    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 11

Posting Permissions

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