Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 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 02:38 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
    20,799
    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
    8,089
    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
    175
    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 07:41 AM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,089
    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
    901
    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
    529
    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
    738
    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
    130

    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
    626
    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
    6,483
    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
    12,382
    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
    3,798
    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
    217

    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
    286

    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 12:08 PM.

  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
    6,483
    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
    11,929
    Conti Vertical 2.3 UST?

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... 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
  •