Results 1 to 49 of 49
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189

    Maxxis High Rollers vs ?? what

    Hi guys.

    I ride in the uk mostly but moving back to New Zealand.
    I ride mostly Maxxis High Rollers 2.35 front and back.

    My only issue with them is they can be a bit slow rolling but grip and durability are very good. I sometimes run an Ignitor or Crossmark on the rear
    Curious about real world experience with Nobby Nics, Nevegals etc.
    I run Tubeless exclusively.

    How do these tyre hold up? Grip good? Side wall tears? Rolling resistance?

    Any real world views appreciated otherwise I'll stick to to trusty HR's

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    862
    Nobby nic 2.4 snakeskin held up well for me, but then I weigh 142. They seem fast rolling, they're huge tires, and they are light. I used the nobby nic as a rear and it wore out fast, leading to a lot of sliding around during braking. I moved up to a fat albert 2.4 on the back and it has more grip than the NN when it was new, but its also slower rolling and weighs 100g more. I'm ok with that for now, next time I might go NN again though, just to change things up.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    so maybe a fat albert rear and nobby up front. I think the tubeless sizes they do are 2.25 and 2.1 no 2.4

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,440
    FWIW, I'm enjoying a set of Specialized Captain Control 2.2 (looks bigger than that) right now....

  5. #5
    The Crow
    Reputation: Iwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    937
    Have been riding Nevegals since forever and only recently tried High Rollers. HOUR are miles faster and feels,to me at least, to have more grip. For now its between them and Minions for me

    2.35 HR is similar ro Nev 2.1's FYI
    There's a feeling I get
    When I look to the West
    And my spirit is crying for leaving

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    Sorry Iwan didn't understand your post. HOUR??
    I run 2.35 High Rollers and love Minions except for them not being Tubeless. Nevegal 2.1 were on my Ibis Demo bike and they were ok

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by nzl62
    so maybe a fat albert rear and nobby up front. I think the tubeless sizes they do are 2.25 and 2.1 no 2.4
    To me there's not much downside to FA in the front since most of your rolling resistance comes from the back tire. Well, except for the 100 grams.

    I run my NN and fat alberts tubeless, but they are the standard tires. The seal up really easily, probably due to the stiffer snakeskin sidewalls. That's on stans flow rims.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    I've always wanted to try some specialized tires but they have always felt harder than even the maxxis 60a to me. I like a supertacky up front and a 60a rear, that way they wear at a similar-sh rate

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by nzl62
    Sorry Iwan didn't understand your post. HOUR??
    I run 2.35 High Rollers and love Minions except for them not being Tubeless. Nevegal 2.1 were on my Ibis Demo bike and they were ok
    I would bet he posted via his blackberry and HR is an auto-text shortcut for HOUR....

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    ok that makes sense so Iwan recons HR's roll better than Nevegals so that rules the Kendas out for me

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Magsrgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,114
    Most anything rolls better than the Nevegals! I think my next setup is going to be a Ardent front and a SB8 rear tire.

  12. #12
    Singletrack Addict!!!
    Reputation: Relayden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    905
    I love the High Roller, if only their sizing was truer to advertized. Been using Kenda el Moco 2.3 sticky E, nice tire...

  13. #13
    Antagonist
    Reputation: spill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by hanssc
    FWIW, I'm enjoying a set of Specialized Captain Control 2.2 (looks bigger than that) right now....

    +1

    Good traction, and they really last. The "Armadillo" versions are pretty resilient to thorns and whatnot, too.

  14. #14
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,316
    Quote Originally Posted by Ansible
    To me there's not much downside to FA in the front since most of your rolling resistance comes from the back tire. Well, except for the 100 grams.

    I run my NN and fat alberts tubeless, but they are the standard tires. The seal up really easily, probably due to the stiffer snakeskin sidewalls. That's on stans flow rims.
    Ditto to this. I find that up front the FA handles rocky looseness noticeably better than the NN, whereas in the rear the NN doesn't give up much to the FA in traction (but does roll better as advertised). In the rear the 2.25 NN is even faster than the 2.4 NN (as you'd expect) but I notice it to be slightly squeamish on off-camber turns & switchbacks.

    If you don't have rocky terrain to worry about, the standard tires set up just fine on Stan's rims with sealant. However, in the 2.4 sizes I've noticed that the snakeskin is important to give the sidewalls some stability; otherwise things start to squirm around at the low, tubeless pressures I like to run (20-25psi depending on conditions).
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,666
    Check out the new Minion 2.5 single ply for the front (more like a 2.4 at 850 grams) and a 2.25 Ardent for the rear. Great traction up front and low rolling resistance out back.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    Hey smithy, how huge is the 2.25 Ardent? I recently picked up a 2.25 Crossmark and it was significantly bigger than the 2.35 HR up front. In other words I wished I'd got a 2.1 instead

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: getbusyliving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    417
    Agreed the Nevegals roll horribly (but have great grip). Nevs also difficult to mount tubeless except UST version which is ridiculously heavy. I went from 3 years on Nev 2.35 to Specialized Eskar Control 2.3. Eskars are lighter, roll better, more durable, mount tubelessly really well and grip is about as good as Nevs. More expensive than Nevs, but last way longer and so much better tire...and still much less expensive than Nobby Nics (at least in US).

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    Yeah Nobby Nics are expensive, thats the reason I haven't tried them. Maxxis offer grip and affordability, which is important to me as I get through a lot of tyres with DH racing, the Mojo and a couple of other commuter/hack bikes

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    984
    I've ridden both the Nobby Nics and Fat Alberts. NEITHER were good on granite rock faces, the Fat Alberts were skitchy on loose dusty corners. I thought they were ok on wet at lower speeds, at higher speeds they were unpredictable.

    I believe they also have harder rubber then the Maxxis and Kenda's.

    My go to tires are the Nevegals cause I like their grip, but yes they have poor rolling resistance.

    Just rode my husbands bike with Highroller 2.35 front and rear. Really great on dry dirt, roots cornering etc.

    Popular tire up here ( north vancouver, whistler area ) are the Minions. Not sure if you can get them tubeless.

    Check out the Continental Rubber Queen as well.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: V.P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,704
    the high roller slow rolling??? I dont get that at all..

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    High Roller is slowER rolling than say an Ignitor or Crossmark but I wouldn't say its slow.
    Anyone run an Ardent up front? To be honest I think a new set of Lust High Rollers are on the way

  22. #22
    all about the ride down
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    378
    I just mounted up some 2.4 Ardents F&R. Love them! Roll faster than the Nevegals. They do have a drift patch as you lean them over. It's predictable and fun to play with.
    The More People I Meet the More I Prefer Dogs!

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by split.therapy
    I just mounted up some 2.4 Ardents F&R. Love them! Roll faster than the Nevegals. They do have a drift patch as you lean them over. It's predictable and fun to play with.
    Need to give those tires a try. One criticism is thin sidewalls so be careful in the rocks!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Brodiegrrl
    I've ridden both the Nobby Nics and Fat Alberts. NEITHER were good on granite rock faces, the Fat Alberts were skitchy on loose dusty corners. I thought they were ok on wet at lower speeds, at higher speeds they were unpredictable.

    I believe they also have harder rubber then the Maxxis and Kenda's.

    My go to tires are the Nevegals cause I like their grip, but yes they have poor rolling resistance.

    Just rode my husbands bike with Highroller 2.35 front and rear. Really great on dry dirt, roots cornering etc.

    Popular tire up here ( north vancouver, whistler area ) are the Minions. Not sure if you can get them tubeless.

    Check out the Continental Rubber Queen as well.
    They have the Minion F&R UST in sticky rubber at the shop here. Big ole stack of them... I guess they are popular.
    "It looks flexy"

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Magsrgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,114
    I also think a couple of the tires from Continential look like real good options too. I've been considering the Rubber Queen / Mountain King
    Last edited by Magsrgod; 08-18-2010 at 01:38 PM.

  26. #26
    Spice
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    685
    I had nobby nic's 2.25 front and 2.1 on my gary fisher roscoe, got rid of the rear one because the sidewall is very thin and weak. I dont ride anything very rocky, mostly cross country through woods, which still ended up with lots of tears in the rear tyre from roots, stumps etc.
    I've put a high roller 2.1 on the back, seems slightly smaller than the nobby nic, but digs in and grips much much better, sidewalls seem fine too

  27. #27
    meh
    Reputation: clewttu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,187
    Nobby Nics were recently updated, and have more cut resistant sidewalls, just an fyi ^

  28. #28
    Ride More Work Less
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    372
    I have one year now with 2.4 Cont. Mountain King Protection tires and they have performed extremely well. Good grip and cornering. Acceptable in the wet and mud. I roll a lot faster than my friends on Nevegals and don't have the thin sidewalls blowing out like they do. On a ride last weekend, 3 riders with Nevegals had a total of 5 flats. I had none on the MKs.

  29. #29
    The Crow
    Reputation: Iwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by Wernervdmerwe
    I would bet he posted via his blackberry and HR is an auto-text shortcut for HOUR....
    It pays to have a PA!

    Yeah, that what happened
    There's a feeling I get
    When I look to the West
    And my spirit is crying for leaving

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    My view of Contis was shaped by the utterly dreadful Verticals. Might take some time to bring me around

  31. #31
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,437
    Rubber Queen 2.4's or Ardent 2.4's (with the new exo-protection)

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    the exo protection Maxxis range aren't tubeless though are they pastajet?

  33. #33
    aka dan51
    Reputation: d-bug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,010
    Another vote for the Captain 2.2. I have the GRID version and love it. Traction is very impressive. Up front I have the Rubber Queen 2.4 which is HUGE. Traction with it is awesome so far.

    My HR experience wasn't that great. Very little traction when climbing. When I got out of the seat to pedal the tire slipped on everything. Then it bubbled after 3 months and I can no longer run it tubeless. $70 down the drain.

  34. #34
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,437
    Quote Originally Posted by nzl62
    the exo protection Maxxis range aren't tubeless though are they pastajet?
    They are not, but I have run them that way since day one, the sidewalls are pretty stout and never had any issues with them sealing up nor burping. I did beta testing of both the 26 and 29 version of the 2.4's, and the 29er's were brutally abused at the Pueblo South Shore trails all winter (sharp sidewall tearing rocks). Currently testing something new with the Ardent's for which I cannot speak (bound by testing rules).

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    Was that with UST rims or Stans type?

  36. #36
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,437
    I used a UST rim on the 29er rear, Stans rim on the front, for the 26er, used Stans rim on both (actually Sun Ringle rims, but they license the Stans technology)

  37. #37
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    954
    I run Conti Mountain Kings 2.2 UST on my Mojo SL. Nice tires and they roll great.

    Regards

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phoenixsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    232
    We run through rooty thick topsoil, hard prarie, loose creek stone on hard pack, full on rock piles and lots of sand pits all on one trail... nevegal 2.3 f / 2.1 r were dreadfully slow compared to a lighter xc michelin - but they did inspire confidence with their grip.

    I drank the kool aid from the weirwolf video and ordered a set of those. I had some continental Mtn Kings that warped so I avoid those. If the weir's suck then I am off to try schwalbe I suppose.

    The michelin xc on my tranny are very impressive, I wish they had more selection in trail grip.

    Tire selection is so region based I think its real hard to go by the net, I just really take note to what more experienced riders are rolling on the same trails. Talking to them, half the time they are still searching for tire answers though too.
    note to self, do not read rider down forum.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    28
    I have been on everything form IRC Mithos 1.95 to my current 2.5 WTB weirwolf's and I still don't have the answer as to what I like the best. I rolled on the smaller lighter tires back in Texas, but now that I am in So Cal I need more flotation. I have to say that I did LOVE my 2.35 Nevegals "Dual tread compound in the back with StickE in the front." I have alot of rides in on the High rollers too and to directly compare them.... The Nevegals are WAY bigger in 2.35 "they are bigger then my 2.5 wtb,s" but I did not find them to roll so terribly badly compared to the high rollers. but I suppose the difference in noticeable.. I run Stans, so they were no problem to mount tubeless even though they were not UST, which kept the weight similar to the HR's. For me it came down to 2 things. One being the compound in the StickE, which is SUPER tacky and probably the most confidence inspiring I have felt to date. And two would be the way they corner. Then High Rollers are ultra solid until they are not and you go down, however the Nevegals let you feel the slide a bit and give you plenty of warning before you wash out. This is similar to the feel of the Weirwolfs I am running now "which I love so far" However the new model seems a pretty good leap forward and may be worth a look too! They also have worked great tubeless in normal tire form, but do come in a tubeless ready version.

  40. #40
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    The 2.35 highroller is a small tire. Most of the one I used were actually 2.15 at the widest. The Ardent and Advantage run very true to the stated size and with the EXO sidewall and very sturdy. They work extremely well tubeless.

    The bonus is that for the price of one Schwalbe you can get two Maxxis tires.
    Nothing to see here.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    The bonus is that for the price of one Schwalbe you can get two Maxxis tires.

    That has always been a big selling point for me.

    High Rollers are small, I am curios as to how much grip you get from and Ardent if you run it up front? One issue I have with Maxxis at the moment is that they seem to be in a transition stage between sizing. For example if I want to run a High Roller up fron with a Crossmark on the back, it really means a heavier 2.5 HR to match, or a smaller rear. Currently I have a 2.25 Crossmark on the rear and a 2.35 HR up front but it has affected the geometry noticeably.

  42. #42
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    I have found that the newer sizes (like the 2.4 & 2.25) from Maxxis are very true to size it was the older 2.35 & 2.1 that were grossly undersized with some exceptions.

    The Ardent is a great tire for front or rear. It rolls lime a slick but corners like a DH tire. The only thing it doesn't handle well is gooey mud.
    Nothing to see here.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: phoenixsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    232
    Weirwolfs were a big fail. They are amazing through smooth packed sandy/clay etc. But in rocky climbs and espcially switchbacks they spun out so bad I had to step off. Same sections last week w/ kenda nevegals I picked my way through. Rocks are definately their downfall. I have rear wheel video I will try to chop up sometime this week. Mid trail I dropped air pressure to beg for some more grip and it helped a little.

    I should have ordered through competitive cyclist so I could return them. Lesson learned, I ordered a set of trail king ust and will give that a more thorough go. At least I am getting a better feel about tread designs and what works around here. An expensive process though.

    Next will be a maxxis tires, then I will have pretty much made the rounds I think.


    Riding around on tricons vs cobalts was a bit different. A rock or branch hitting high tension spokes sounded like a bow and arrow assault was being launched at me. Fun wheels all in all.
    note to self, do not read rider down forum.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    The problem I have had is that whenever I have deviated from HR's I have been disappointed. I would kill for a set of UST or LUST Minions but I don't trust them in ghetto tubeless mode on my 819's. Probably work fine but I don't really want to take the risk. If I build a set of Stans Flows I will given them a go. I have been on the look out for something different or better than High Rollers but I haven't found them yet. Many tyres are lighter but often with weak sidewalls ( Nobby Nicks) grippy but terrible rolling (Nevegals) roll fast but don't hook up ( Crossmarks )
    Not tried rubber Queens or some of Specialized's new offerings. Older contis were a disgrace (Verticals and Gravity's) older specialized were heavier for less grip (Eskars/ Chunders). Thanks for all the comments but I have had to order High Rollers... again! I suppose it's no surprise that you see them on the Pro DH riders XC bikes as well as gravity sleds

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,178
    Quote Originally Posted by phoenixsun
    Weirwolfs were a big fail. They are amazing through smooth packed sandy/clay etc. But in rocky climbs and espcially switchbacks they spun out so bad I had to step off. Same sections last week w/ kenda nevegals I picked my way through. Rocks are definately their downfall. I have rear wheel video I will try to chop up sometime this week. Mid trail I dropped air pressure to beg for some more grip and it helped a little.

    I should have ordered through competitive cyclist so I could return them. Lesson learned, I ordered a set of trail king ust and will give that a more thorough go. At least I am getting a better feel about tread designs and what works around here. An expensive process though.

    Next will be a maxxis tires, then I will have pretty much made the rounds I think.


    Riding around on tricons vs cobalts was a bit different. A rock or branch hitting high tension spokes sounded like a bow and arrow assault was being launched at me. Fun wheels all in all.
    I love my weirwolfs in the rocks

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    536
    I run the HR on the back and a minion on the front ( Both 60A) and have been very happy with them. I tried tubeless and spent more time pumping up my tires than I ever have in my entire life, but since switching back to simple is better tubes,my Maxxis tires don't pinch flat( Knock on wood), so problem solved.

    Kenda Nevagals, "neva" roll fast and "neva" last long either.

    Schwalbes are great tires, but they should be when you're laying down a benjamin for a bike tire.

    WTB tires are too lightweight for every day uses( Prowlers). Unless you enjoy changing tubes in the middle of a ride regularly. Or in my buddy's case, he was forced to switch from tubeless to tubed in the middle of the ride( Weirwolfs).

    Specialized makes a good tire, but they're a little pricey for what you get, in my opinion. I.e. you're paying a high price for a tire that is only above average in performance.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    56
    For me the UST high roller has been great when it is dry
    but if it is the least bit wet, they slip like mad on everything
    they touch. I think it may be the hard 70a compound. When
    I replace them it will be with the non UST version and I will
    convert them.

    Also, as a grippy front tire, I think the El moco stick-e is the best
    I have used. Just need to pair it with a fast rear.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    Man what High Rollers are you running!

    I have never run a 70a 2.1 Don't really see the point. Also they don't work well over 35psi IMO. I normally run28 front, 30 rear for virtually all riding

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    56
    2.35 UST is 70a and I run them at 25 psi. Like I said, next time I will go for the regular version that is 60a and see if that makes a difference because other than their performance on wet rocks and roots, they are great tires.

Members who have read this thread: 0

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.