Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    43

    Schwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)

    I could not find any in-depth comparisons between these two tires before I invested in the Rekon, so here is my contribution to the community. The TLDR version is that they are very similar in almost all dimensions, but the Rekon is 116 grams lighter than the NN. This means I'll be popping the Rekon in my single-speed the next time I fuss with the tires, because that's the one bike with which I prioritize weight over other factors.

    Before I add in the pictures, I should set the stage. Both tires are on the same WTB Asym i35 rim. Both were inflated with tubes for these pictures. I was not keeping either tire on either wheel and got tired of trying to install them tubeless just for the pictures.

    I should flag that the Rekon was an absolute pain when I was trying to get it set-up without tubes. I use a Schwalbe Airshot at home and this instantly inflates most tires on most rims. Not this Rekon, and not this rim. For the first time ever I had to resort to soaping the bead to get it set. Even when inflated to ~50 psi the bead never gave that reassuring pop we all love so much. I feel less confident about the Rekon mounted tubeless than any other tire I have ever ridden. In fact -- in a very first for me -- the bead popped off the rim when I was inflating the tube.
    There is a slight chance I didn't install the tire correctly. Doubtful, but it could have happened.

    The NN was previously installed tubeless and had been ridden for about 30 miles. The Maxxis was brand new. So it is reasonable to think the Rekon will end up larger than the NN after some riding time.

    Schwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180704_184215150.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180704_184048796-1-.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180704_184150795.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180704_184024667-1-.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180704_184141408-1-.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180704_184005606.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180703_203919903.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180703_203819605-1-.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180703_203518034-1-.jpgSchwalbe Nobby Nic 29x2.6 vs Maxxis Rekon 29x2.6 in pictures and numbers (and words!)-img_20180703_203351755_burst000_cover_top.jpg

  2. #2
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,155
    Awesome, thanks for going to the work. Once you've ridden both under similar conditions & terrain, please return with a performance comparison. Thanks again.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,325
    Great contribution, thanks. I have found the Schwalbe carcass/compound/tread to be - generally - faster rolling, with better grip in timed climbs than the Maxxis. (Having compared Ikon Vs. Racing Ralph and Rocket Ron and Ardent Vs. Nobby Nic.) With durability going to the Maxxis. It would be interesting to see if you come to the same conclusion.

  4. #4
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,155
    Quote Originally Posted by MSU Alum View Post
    Great contribution, thanks. I have found the Schwalbe carcass/compound/tread to be - generally - faster rolling, with better grip in timed climbs than the Maxxis. (Having compared Ikon Vs. Racing Ralph and Rocket Ron and Ardent Vs. Nobby Nic.) With durability going to the Maxxis. It would be interesting to see if you come to the same conclusion.
    Thanks for this too, MSU Alum. I've used the NNs and like them but wouldn't mind shedding a couple hundred grams of rotating weight if all else is equal. Not interested in losing performance, tho. The NNs work well wherever I've ridden them (OR, WA, UT).
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  5. #5
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,421
    Yesterday I measured the b2b and weight of nine 29 x 2.6" tires. Worth mentioning that the McFly is called a 2.8 and the FBN is nominally a 3.0.

    Schwalbe Hans Dampf = 156mm, 999g.
    Maxxis Rekon = 160mm, 771g.
    Terevail Kennebec = 166mm, 1002g. This is the 'light and supple' version -- feels plenty heavy to me.
    Bontrager XR-4 = 160mm, 943g.
    Bontrager XR-2 = 159mm, 730g.
    Panaracer Fat B Nimble = 174mm, 800g.
    Terrene McFly = 160mm, 874g. Light version.
    Schwalbe Nobby Nic = 159mm, 916g, 1000g (yes, I weighed two)
    Vittoria Mezcal = 166mm, 883g.

    Of these, so far I've ridden the

    Schwalbe Hans Dampf
    Maxxis Rekon
    Bontrager XR-4
    Bontrager XR-2
    Panaracer Fat B Nimble
    Schwalbe Nobby Nic

    Haven't yet found a place where I like the HD. It has grip for days out back, seems to skate up front, and seems way heavier than I need for the way I ride these days.
    Rekon is a good all-rounder, front or rear. More sensitive to pressure up front -- meaning I don't like it nearly as much when it's even 1psi too firm.
    XR4 is really good up front. Seems like overkill out back.
    XR2 is my favorite out back so far. Haven't tried it up front yet.
    FBN seems to be made of papier mache. Might be fine in places without rocks, but it was just too delicate for me, even up front.
    NN is sorta meh. Rolls OK, corners OK, traction is OK. Can't say that it particularly shines anywhere specific.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Yesterday I measured the b2b and weight of nine 29 x 2.6" tires. Worth mentioning that the McFly is called a 2.8 and the FBN is nominally a 3.0.

    Schwalbe Hans Dampf = 156mm, 999g.
    Maxxis Rekon = 160mm, 771g.
    Terevail Kennebec = 166mm, 1002g. This is the 'light and supple' version -- feels plenty heavy to me.
    Bontrager XR-4 = 160mm, 943g.
    Bontrager XR-2 = 159mm, 730g.
    Panaracer Fat B Nimble = 174mm, 800g.
    Terrene McFly = 160mm, 874g. Light version.
    Schwalbe Nobby Nic = 159mm, 916g, 1000g (yes, I weighed two)
    Vittoria Mezcal = 166mm, 883g.

    Of these, so far I've ridden the

    Schwalbe Hans Dampf
    Maxxis Rekon
    Bontrager XR-4
    Bontrager XR-2
    Panaracer Fat B Nimble
    Schwalbe Nobby Nic

    Haven't yet found a place where I like the HD. It has grip for days out back, seems to skate up front, and seems way heavier than I need for the way I ride these days.
    Rekon is a good all-rounder, front or rear. More sensitive to pressure up front -- meaning I don't like it nearly as much when it's even 1psi too firm.
    XR4 is really good up front. Seems like overkill out back.
    XR2 is my favorite out back so far. Haven't tried it up front yet.
    FBN seems to be made of papier mache. Might be fine in places without rocks, but it was just too delicate for me, even up front.
    NN is sorta meh. Rolls OK, corners OK, traction is OK. Can't say that it particularly shines anywhere specific.
    Mike, what terrain were you riding with these thoughts in mind? I ride mostly in UT, Park City specifically.....so lots of loose over hard and drier conditions. Been holding out for the 29 2.6 Forekaster for a front to pair with Rekon. However, am becoming in need sooner than later. These would be on Ibis 942 (internal 38) on a Ripley LS v3.

    Thanks!

  7. #7
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,421
    Quote Originally Posted by bremmick View Post
    Mike, what terrain were you riding with these thoughts in mind? I ride mostly in UT, Park City specifically.....so lots of loose over hard and drier conditions. Been holding out for the 29 2.6 Forekaster for a front to pair with Rekon. However, am becoming in need sooner than later. These would be on Ibis 942 (internal 38) on a Ripley LS v3.

    Thanks!

    Colorado -- both desert (GJ) and alpine.

    For Park City I'd run a Rekon front and XR2 rear and -- once i figured out ideal pressures -- be happy.

  8. #8
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,118
    Something like the XR2 would pretty cool for my daily riding, but how's the durability? I need something at least as tough as EXO, maybe a bit more.

    I keep thinking the Rock Razor 2.35 (b2b 152-155mm) would be a pretty rad rear tire, and decently lightweight in Snakeskin Addix.

    I think I'll like the Rekon as a front tire, so you'd end up with a slightly undersized 2.5 Rekon and a slightly oversized 2.4 Rock Razor both weighing under 800g.
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Colorado -- both desert (GJ) and alpine.

    For Park City I'd run a Rekon front and XR2 rear and -- once i figured out ideal pressures -- be happy.

    Mike couple questions for you:

    How does Rekon compare as a front versus as 2.6 NN?

    XR2 on rear looks racy....similar to a Kenda SB8....does it do well in the loose?


    Also, the gauntlet of questions is because I thought I was going light considering a (F/R) or XR4/XR3 o Forekaster/Rekon, compared to the more standard out here of DHF/Aggressor.

    Thanks!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by bremmick View Post
    Mike, what terrain were you riding with these thoughts in mind? I ride mostly in UT, Park City specifically.....so lots of loose over hard and drier conditions. Been holding out for the 29 2.6 Forekaster for a front to pair with Rekon. However, am becoming in need sooner than later. These would be on Ibis 942 (internal 38) on a Ripley LS v3.

    Thanks!
    I've been riding a Ripley LS with Rekon 2.6 rear, 2.4 front for a week and a half all over Park City and have been extremely pleased with the results. Tried NN 2.6, hated them, tried 2.25 Rekon in back, no bueno. The combo I'm using now may not be the fastest out there, but for hooking up everywhere (Crest, Flying Dog, all over Canyons, PC and DV) front and back (climbs like crazy in the current loose dust and marbles) I'm loving it.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Colorado -- both desert (GJ) and alpine.

    For Park City I'd run a Rekon front and XR2 rear and -- once i figured out ideal pressures -- be happy.

    Switched out from the 2.6 Nobby Nic's to a 2.6 XR4 Team (front) and 2.6 XR2 (rear), one big ride on it so far and I'm in love. Fast rolling and loads of grip when needed. Did a 32 mile and 4800 vertical feet route from Park City base area to the Wasatch Crest down to the Canyons and back to Park City.

    So far so good with these tires, I love the feel, corner predictably with good bite, and the durability seems pretty solid thus far.

  12. #12
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,118
    I'll certainly need to check back on the durablity and toughness of the XR2 by next year. It'd be rad if they are as tough or tougher than EXO or Snakeskin.
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    131
    How about the 2.6 Specialized Butcher/Purgatory combo. Iím running them on my new Stumpy. I havenít measured them but they donít appear to be true 2.6. However they feel really good and Iím happy so far. Has anyone else tried them?

  14. #14
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,118
    Butcher is a slow roller.

    Purg/Slaughter would be a good combo, but the tires are pretty beefy, definitely heavier than EXO or Snakeskin.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: azjonboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,631
    Regarding durability of the XR2 - been riding them in Phoenix and northern AZ for a while on a rigid 29er SS and a 9.7 Stache. I really like the way this tire handle rocks, baby heads as well as full on big stuff. Iím running the 29x3.0

    Also does well in northern AZ as long as pine needles arenít too deep

    Iíve run them on Duroc 50, Flow MKIII and WTB i40 rims. 10 psi front 11 rear
    If you're lucky enough to be in the mountains,
    you're lucky enough.

  16. #16
    No longer 26
    Reputation: G-Live's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,090
    So are the new 2.6 tires working well in a little older front forks? I have a 29er fox float 32 from 2011 and would like to put a bigger tire up front. Been awhile since Ive been riding mtb.

    G
    You can't depend on honest answers from dependant hands...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by G-Live View Post
    So are the new 2.6 tires working well in a little older front forks? I have a 29er fox float 32 from 2011 and would like to put a bigger tire up front. Been awhile since Ive been riding mtb.

    G
    It depends. Measure how much room you have with your current setup.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    139
    Looking for 2.6 tire to run on Stans Arch 30mm rims. Currently running 2.8 Rekons on Stans Barron wheels.

    I ride in AZ and travel to Moab and GJ. I like the XR4 but have been told it needs a wider rim.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socal_jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by jredling View Post
    How about the 2.6 Specialized Butcher/Purgatory combo. Iím running them on my new Stumpy. I havenít measured them but they donít appear to be true 2.6. However they feel really good and Iím happy so far. Has anyone else tried them?
    Running that combo on my ROS9, think I would've preferred a purg/purg combo but yeah on i29 rims ~2.45" across widest each. Not sure what all this slow rolling stuff is about but if you're really on dirt I think the Q-meters have proven that shit bunk a long time ago, it's mostly in the brain where things slow down looking at knobs.
    ROS9+ SS
    ROS9 SS
    GT Peace 9R SS

  20. #20
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,118
    Quote Originally Posted by socal_jack View Post
    Running that combo on my ROS9, think I would've preferred a purg/purg combo but yeah on i29 rims ~2.45" across widest each. Not sure what all this slow rolling stuff is about but if you're really on dirt I think the Q-meters have proven that shit bunk a long time ago, it's mostly in the brain where things slow down looking at knobs.
    Yes because XC world cups are run on DH tires with huge knobs. There couldn't be any reason why that is...

    "Q-meters" or whatever the hell your going on about has no ability to measure rolling resistance of a given tire. I guess you could maybe measure the amount of effort require to push a bike on flat ground on two different types of tires for equal distance, and if you did so it'd be pretty obvious which tire was impeding your progress more.

    So yes, rolling resistance is a thing, and big knobs do impact it.
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socal_jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by PHeller View Post
    Yes because XC world cups are run on DH tires with huge knobs. There couldn't be any reason why that is...

    "Q-meters" or whatever the hell your going on about has no ability to measure rolling resistance of a given tire. I guess you could maybe measure the amount of effort require to push a bike on flat ground on two different types of tires for equal distance, and if you did so it'd be pretty obvious which tire was impeding your progress more.

    So yes, rolling resistance is a thing, and big knobs do impact it.
    I think the XC racing is more concerned with weight especially at the periphery of a wheel which for long races is a very real thing. For the average rider, not so concerning. The work expended can be accurately measured over varying terrain on closed loop courses using the same rider especially when averaged over many tries and has been for a PhD thesis I've seen. All things being equal if you can manage the tire weight not much there. I usually run fairly aggressive tires on my SS bikes and weight is the killer, the DHF/DHRs on my 29x3s are a bitch to spin up, make the purg/butcher combo seem like Ikons. Of course most "really" aggressive tires have DH weight casings on top of that, WTB 29x2.5 Dissents I used to run were nearly 1500 gms each, a real workout.
    ROS9+ SS
    ROS9 SS
    GT Peace 9R SS

  22. #22
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,118
    If XC was more concerned with weight, why wouldn't we see ultralight, but still knobby tires? I'd imagine you could make some very sticky tread that was only designed to last a single race, and would allow XC racers to shred corners and rocket up climbs...but that doesn't happen...because sticky tread, and any tread, creates grip, ie friction, and that increases rolling resistance making a tire "slower."

    Why would DH racers cut down knobs? Schwalbe made a tool specifically for this purpose. They even say ďAlthough we offer a suitable tread for every type of terrain, sometimes unpredictable trail conditions require a unique tread to find the perfect balance of rolling and grip..."

    Here's an answer from Outside magazine, a bunch of kooks they are:

    "At face value, the idea that something smooth has lower rolling resistance than something rough is so obvious that to deny there's a difference puts you in the world-is-flat camp. "
    Last edited by PHeller; 08-24-2018 at 01:44 PM.
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

Similar Threads

  1. 29x2.6 Nobby Nic / XR4 / Rekon - Comparisons?
    By drdocta in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-23-2018, 05:45 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-03-2018, 04:48 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-21-2017, 10:06 AM
  4. Conti MKII 29x2.4 vs Nobby Nic 29x2.35?
    By targnik in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-30-2015, 05:32 PM
  5. Nobby nic vs nobby nic
    By crux in forum 29er Components
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-17-2013, 08:17 AM

Members who have read this thread: 366

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.