Results 1 to 72 of 72

Thread: Tire shootout

  1. #1
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464

    Tire shootout

    Big Betty (my current favorite) vs Specialized Eskar vs. Specialized Resolution

    One of my Bettys was starting to wear out, the outside knobs were worn and starting to tear, so I decided it was time to mount some new rubber. What sealed this decision was on yesterdays ride my rear tire completely blew off the rim when landing on top of a log coming out of a big compression jump (ahhhhh....thanks for the warning AA!!). It came off again in a high speed corner with a steep hill climb at the end - good thing a bare stans rim has such good traction . It had been run with tubes on different rims and might have been stretched out.


    I went to the basement to gather up my supplies and noticed I had about enough Stans spluge to do 1 tire with a small amount left over. Crap! Eskar needs the Spluge as they are "tubeless ready" (UST bead with normal sidewalls). I looked at my tire stash and decided that I would throw on the Resolution that Al29 so kindly sold to me when he went to full-on Zealot status. It is a true UST and I could use the little bit of leftover Stans to help protect against thorn flats.

    Hopefully I can get a kitchen pass from the wife for a day trip to Pisgah to test

    In true homer fashion I photographed, weighed and measured the new stuff so here are the details.

    Weigh in:
    Resolution UST 2.3 - 900g

    Eskar Control 2bliss #1 - 700g

    Eskar Control 2bliss #2 - 740g

    Big Betty Triple compound - 910g

    Size 'em up: (on Stans Flow rims)
    The Resolution - 2.24" wide at the casing and 2.22" at the widest tread point

    The Eskar - 2.25" wide at the casing and 2.24" at the widest tread point.

    The Betty - 2.4" wide at the casing and 2.5" wide at the widest tread point

    The pics: (Forgot to take Betty's pic)






















    <!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
    Last edited by SSINGA; 11-01-2007 at 02:07 PM.
    Nothing to see here.

  2. #2
    198
    Reputation: RSutton1223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,802
    Waiting in anticipation......

  3. #3
    Team Sanchez
    Reputation: El Chingon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,368
    Tires are such a subjective thing aren't they? I have tried so many different tires, and I recently came back to the ol 2.5 singleply Nevys. A tire that came in close second in terms of cornering and braking traction was the Advantage, but the sidewalls were paper thin. My third favorite was the 2.35 Highroller Lust, but it was pretty low volume and felt pretty harsh with 50 psi in it. For So Utah riding, the Nevy rules. Some of my buddies are running the 1000grm Kenda Telonix with great success. The sidewall is like that of a Betty, but with a much more aggressive tread pattern. The only complaint I've heard is that with the tall knobs, they are slow rollers.

  4. #4
    Flyin Canine
    Reputation: shanedawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,272
    BTW Kenda is coming out with a new 2.5 nevegal FR tire that's gonna be right around 1000gm too.

  5. #5
    Team Sanchez
    Reputation: El Chingon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,368
    Perfect. A little thicker sidewall on the Nevy is a very welcome thing.

  6. #6
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Tires are very subjective and terrain dependant. Just offering some feedback for my conditions and use. It has been very dry here this year so the trails are very hard and dusty. Lots of pine straw covering it as well. The Nevy was ok but too slow rolling and the side walls were too thin for me, constantly pinch flatting or you could feel it squirming underneath you. The Blue groove was good as long as there was no pine straw but still had the same sidewall issues.

    The Betty is fabulous. Good rolling and great sidewalls. Handles the hardpack and pine straw well but a little porky at 900+g.

    The Eskar is in-between the two. Not quite as thick (by feel anyway) as the Betty but not super flimsy like the Kenda.
    Nothing to see here.

  7. #7
    Team Sanchez
    Reputation: El Chingon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,368
    For a guy my size, I've only run the 2.5 Nevy's with great success. The 2.35 Nevy's I've tried were too low volume and I would pinch flat like crazy, and the 2.35's also seemed more prone to knobs getting ripped off. The Betty's on the other hand have nice volume and a great sidewall, but I felt like the cornering knobs weren't stout enough, and the tire would drift unpredictably in high speed turns.

  8. #8
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chingon
    For a guy my size, I've only run the 2.5 Nevy's with great success. The 2.35 Nevy's I've tried were too low volume and I would pinch flat like crazy, and the 2.35's also seemed more prone to knobs getting ripped off. The Betty's on the other hand have nice volume and a great sidewall, but I felt like the cornering knobs weren't stout enough, and the tire would drift unpredictably in high speed turns.
    I have 2.35 and 2.5 NEv's and BG. No good for here IMO.

    Wonder how the new Muddy Mary would work for you EL C??
    Nothing to see here.

  9. #9
    thats right living legend
    Reputation: blackagness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,361
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    I have 2.35 and 2.5 NEv's and BG. No good for here IMO.

    Wonder how the new Muddy Mary would work for you EL C??

    I love the Nev down here in all conditions. They do pinch flat, but they have that new side gaurd thing that should do the trick. Also the side knob issue seems to be a thing of the past in 2.35 anyway, which is all I roll.

    Theres still that slow rolling thing though.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,884
    interesting shootout. I have had limited experience with Specialized tires but have always found them very capable. I am currently running a 2.35 Enduro tubeless on the RFX in the front and it doesn't squirm nearly as much as a 2.35 Nevy under hard cornering (both tires have regular casing [non-UST] and are sealed with Stan's on DT 5.1 rims).

    I have been running a 2.5 Nevy in the rear on my DH bike lately but even with DH tubes I pinch flat if I run less than ~38psi. I have switched to a 2.6 Kinetics (Jenson was selling them for $9) and we'll see if it makes a difference.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,321

    I agree

    Quote Originally Posted by RSutton1223
    Waiting in anticipation......
    Was there a review here of the performance of these tires? If so...where TF is it? Thanks.
    Who's in charge, the thinker or the thought?

  12. #12
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    Does SS in SSINGA stand for "Shiggy's Son" ?

    What I take away from this is that the Speshy tires are undersized which explains why they are light.

    Just wait til you get your hands on one of the new 780gm Bettys or the 950 gm UST Betty.

  13. #13
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Quote Originally Posted by shanedawg
    BTW Kenda is coming out with a new 2.5 nevegal FR tire that's gonna be right around 1000gm too.
    I'm waiting on the UST Rampage to hit. An awesome sharp rock tire.

  14. #14
    198
    Reputation: RSutton1223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    Was there a review here of the performance of these tires? If so...where TF is it? Thanks.
    I already know the answer for our area. I switched from the Betty's to the Eskar's a couple of weeks ago. The Eskar's are going to get a great thrashing in some NC terrain this weekend.

  15. #15
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,929
    Dang, did I even ride that tire Looks very fresh. Interested in your thoughts on the UST vs tubeless ready. Also been waiting for some more feedback on the Eskars. Wonder if they will make them in 29er
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  16. #16
    Living the Dream
    Reputation: Alpenglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,723

    Have you guys tried the Specialized

    Enduro 2Bliss? They are 2.4s and I think around 950 grams. They are large 2.4s and air up easy. They don't leak and they seem to wear pretty well. I like them better than Nevegals because I like to run tubeless and the Nevys are kind of hit and miss for tubeless.
    "And I shout that your all fakes and you should have seen the look on your face"

  17. #17
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,117
    Quote Originally Posted by shanedawg
    BTW Kenda is coming out with a new 2.5 nevegal FR tire that's gonna be right around 1000gm too.
    Oh great, even more slow molasses. Now wonder they use sticky rubber...

    Maybe I need to try the Eskar. I have been narrow minded about specialized tires. But right now the Schwalbe Big Betty is my all time favorite.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Turtle 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,143
    I honestly can't think of a wet winter trie I'd pic over the Betty I ran them all last winter, they performed well on slippery roots, rocks and wet-mucky trails; they roll way fast for their size.

    I put the Advantages on in the spring never looked back, they worked well in all conditions except the soft-lomy soil you find deep in the forest; that's pretty good. BTW, I got the Advantages from the most gracious, kind, thoughtful person on this forum; Fo; I wish more people on this forum were like Fo. I can't understand why so many of you are mean to him; he's very nice.

    I would think you'd need a rugged-high volume tire for Utah; all that rock and dry weather has got to be tough on tires. I'm suprised nobody mentioned the Specialized Chunder, it looks like a good choice for agressive riders.

    I rarely keep a set of tires on all winter and I almost never take them off for summer with the intention of putting them on again; the Betty is the first tire I've taken off and put away for the next season; it's almost time to put them on again. Thanks SSINGA, you were right on about the Betty's.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,963
    Runnin' WTB Mx 2.5's here in the NW and been pretty pleased on most conditions. Fantastic in dry loose, rock, hardpack, and wet. A true 2.5 tire that can be had for about $30-34/tire and been running strong all summer and fall, will probably use them for in winter too and bust out the Twolves for those sloppy days.

    JG

  20. #20
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by xcguy
    Was there a review here of the performance of these tires? If so...where TF is it? Thanks.
    Getting to that. Local ride today and hopefully a Pisgah ride tomorrow. Performace report on Monday.

    Does SS in SSINGA stand for "Shiggy's Son" ?
    LOL How about spilling the beans on the new BB availability and specs Squeak?? The new light weight Muddy Mary looks like it would be a great pine straw cutting winter tire for down here
    Nothing to see here.

  21. #21
    198
    Reputation: RSutton1223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Getting to that. Local ride today and hopefully a Pisgah ride tomorrow. Performace report on Monday.
    Are you making the trip up?

  22. #22
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464

    Short Term Test Result

    Both tires are holding air fine. No stans leaking out of either one. I got 2 test rides in at my local riding grounds this weekend. I started out with both tires at 40psi. This was way too firm for the hard-pack covered with pine straw. I was everywhere and had zero control. I lowered to 35, which is the stated lowest limit for the Eskar, and things got a little better. I'll be lowering it to 32 for tomorrows ride, which is where I normally rode the Betty.

    The Resolution:
    Excellent tracking and cornering as long as you stayed off the brakes. It has a very smooth transition from straight to leaned over for hard cornering. The knobs were small enough to cut through the trail duff to get traction but not so small that it felt squirmy. Braking was this tires weak point, straight line it wasn't so bad but leaned over was scary!! (Yea, I know, stay off the brakes in the corners but the trail I was on today is chock-full of reducing radius turns that have high speed entrances. My hack riding skill requires some braking.)


    The Eskar:
    Straight line tracking and braking were good but there is a gap between the edge and center knobs that makes the transition to cornering a bit sketchy for a second. It really lets loose it you try to ride the tire in that orientation. Maybe the lower pressure will help with that? The rolling felt good on dirt but while traversing the sections of bare granite I felt like it was "buzzing" a little like a big truck tire.
    Nothing to see here.

  23. #23
    198
    Reputation: RSutton1223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,802
    Try bring the pressure down in the Eskars...I run about 28-30 in mine.

  24. #24
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by RSutton1223
    Try bring the pressure down in the Eskars...I run about 28-30 in mine.
    Just give me a second!
    Nothing to see here.

  25. #25
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464

    Today's ride report

    WOW! What a difference a few PSI's make. I dropped both tires down to 32psi to start today's ride and most everything I listed as a negative trait disappeared today. About 1/3 of the way into the ride I decided to try just a little bit less air to see what happenes. I blipped out a little from both and finished the ride( checked when I got back to the car 29 front and 30 rear). I could tell things were good because I stopped thinking about "will the tire let me down" and just rode. I'll be heading to another trail tomorrow for more "testing"
    Nothing to see here.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Playdeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    652
    Yeah i need to find something for southern utah that wont pinch all the time....(might help if I learn to ride better too). Sounds like i should learn from ben and get bigger tires too as the 2.3's do seem to pinch alot.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    The Fat Alberts and Big Betty have pretty thick and stiff sidewalls and will not pinch as easily. The Betty probably wins out by a bit. These are going to be my go-to tires this winter and I'll probably just leave them on for next season if they last.

    I have noticed that the Eskars at closer to 32 psi, tend to bottom out on tall waterbars and square rocks. I'm afraid I'll dent my rim. If it had a bit more volume, I'd be fine with lowering the psi in the back.

  28. #28
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    SS,

    Why the comparison of Eskar to Betty?

    Really, these tires are in completely different categories.

    Eskar is skinnier, lighter & less aggressive. More of a "Spot" tire and not too disimilar to a Minion 2.35

    Betty is really a freeride tire.

  29. #29
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,011
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    SS,

    Why the comparison of Eskar to Betty?

    Really, these tires are in completely different categories.

    Eskar is skinnier, lighter & less aggressive. More of a "Spot" tire and not too disimilar to a Minion 2.35

    Betty is really a freeride tire.

    I thought this was the Turner forum....home of the 29lb RFX and 34lb "trail" Highline.

    "lighter & less agressive" = freeride
    Extreme stationary biker.

  30. #30
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    SS,

    Why the comparison of Eskar to Betty?

    Really, these tires are in completely different categories.

    Eskar is skinnier, lighter & less aggressive. More of a "Spot" tire and not too disimilar to a Minion 2.35

    Betty is really a freeride tire.
    Well, with a lighter weight Betty coming out making it more of an "AM" tire and the introduction of a new Specy AM tire that is tubeless "ready", I thought it would be fun to see how they compare. The Specy does look slightly bigger than a 2.35 Maxxis Highroller in width and volume but I didn't have my calipers to measure this AM when I met AppBling for the ride. I will try to get the measurements at tomorrows ride.

    On paper they don't look too different. Eskar is a 2.3 and Betty a 2.4. Their weight is 710 vs 780.
    Nothing to see here.

  31. #31
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,565
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Well, with a lighter weight Betty coming out making it more of an "AM" tire and the introduction of a new Specy AM tire that is tubeless "ready", I thought it would be fun to see how they compare. The Specy does look slightly bigger than a 2.35 Maxxis Highroller in width and volume but I didn't have my calipers to measure this AM when I met AppBling for the ride. I will try to get the measurements at tomorrows ride.

    On paper they don't look too different. Eskar is a 2.3 and Betty a 2.4. Their weight is 710 vs 780.
    I've seen Eskar up close. To my eye, it looks quite a bit narrower than Betty.

    Reading your review I can't tell which tire you prefer. What's the answer?

  32. #32
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    I've seen Eskar up close. To my eye, it looks quite a bit narrower than Betty.

    Reading your review I can't tell which tire you prefer. What's the answer?
    It is smaller than a Betty. It measured out to a 2.25 at the widest point. Betty is 2.5 at the widest.

    I haven't decided which I like best yet because I've only ridden the Eskar 4 times so far. 2 rides were not good because of the air pressure being too high. The last 2 have been good. After another week of riding I'll throw the Betty back on too see which I like better.
    Nothing to see here.

  33. #33
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Well ,the Eskar just are working out traction-wise for me so they are now off the bike. Not a bad tire but just not for fat guys who ride hard.

    Next up: Maxxis High Roller LUST 2.35. They are Zilla approved and MBUK just rated them a 10 in the winter tire test. We'll see. Testing begins early tomorrow AM before the temps get too hot (expecting a nice 73 degre December afternoon)

    930g on the digi scale or a measly 100g more than the non-UST version.
    Last edited by SSINGA; 12-07-2007 at 11:44 AM.
    Nothing to see here.

  34. #34
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,399
    I liked em too, tried one on the back of the Burner, there were some problems(and a thread on the wheels/tires board) with the tread seperating from the tire carcass and bubbles forming. Mine did it late in the tires life and I was able to poke the air bubbles and deflate them, soon after the tread section just shredded, but like I said the tread was already worn out so no biggy but a few folks on the thread I mentioned said they had bubbles form early in the tires life.

    Mine weighed 850g BTW, wonder if they modifyed them since the problem?

  35. #35
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Next up: Maxxis High Roller LUST 2.35. They are Zilla approved and MBUK just rated them a 10 in the winter tire test. We'll see. Testing begins early tomorrow AM before the temps get too hot (expecting a nice 73 degre December afternoon)
    930g on the digi scale or a measly 100g more than the non-UST version.
    THIS is the review I've been waiting for.... SS comparing my favorite tire to his!

    Yeah baby, let the rubbers fly!

    Eh, I probably could have phrased that better.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  36. #36
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    I have 2.35 and 2.5 NEv's and BG. No good for here IMO.
    Agreed. I've tried them in STD 2.5s and PF'd weekly and the sidewalls were so thin and rolly at 38-40 PSI it felt like my wheel came loose. I'm not sure I understand riding them at 50psi as EC does. The traction was barely margional at 35-38 and only got worse at 40+. Different trail conditions on this side of the rock I guess.

    I'm still loving the MHRs I run them in 2.1 on my Spot and they roll like rocket fuel on fire and seem to grip and dig in climbing as well as the 2.3s but not as much cornering traction.

    I have the 2.5s on my RFX and have run them at ~35 PSI and found I can actually go a fair bit lower w/o problems....gotta experiment with that though. They roll a hell of a lot slower than the 2.1s though. A bit slower than the 2.3s and I can feel the extra weight but awesome tires.

    The 2.3s are superb all rounders only it seems the pair I've got burp a bit too much at 35psi where neither the 2.1s nor the 2.5s have this issue even at lower pressures. I figure its just a lazy pair.

    The MHRs hold up excellently on the sharp pointy tire shredding granite in my area, whereas the Conti Verts would slit their own wrists in a couple of rides.

    I gotta say I really am impressed with the MHRs in grip, weight, performance and even price. Can't wait to hear SS's feedback.

    Don't hold back, tell us like it is Sean... bust out dem fat rubbaz.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  37. #37
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Got them mounted now. One went on with the floor pump the other needed to be persuaded on with the compressor.

    Wow! What a let down. I got a 2.05" width measurement and 2.13 at the tread WTF Maxxis?? Can't imagine what the 2.1's are???
    Nothing to see here.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    The new UST Betty is around 980. Is there a new new non-UST Betty and is it 200 grams lighter? Dammit, Schwalbe

    The Maxxis tires run very skinny- at least the ones I have used do. Let us know what you think of those High Rollers.

  39. #39
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    Got them mounted now. One went on with the floor pump the other needed to be persuaded on with the compressor
    Wow! What a let down. I got a 2.05" width measurement and 2.13 at the tread WTF Maxxis?? Can't imagine what the 2.1's are???<!-- / message -->
    Yeah the 2.1s and the 2.5s both went on with a floor pump. The 2.3s gave me kiniptions and I eventually needed a compressor for one. After the first mounting they go on quite easily with just a floor pump.

    The 2.1s might have a thorn leak as they air down in a week. The 2.3s lost a few of PSI in that time. The 2.5s are rock solid and hold air as well as any tube.

    I dunno about the sizes, I'll measure the 2.1s and the 2.5s when I get a chance. The 2.3s aren't currently mounted. I hear they are def narrower than spec'd. The ride made me forget all about that in a hurry.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  40. #40
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I hear they are def narrower than spec'd. The ride made me forget all about that in a hurry.
    Yup, don't let the measurement fool you as they perform really, IMHO. I've been running HRs for years and tried others but keep coming back to High Rollers. Solid all around for SoCal terrain.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  41. #41
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,659
    I'm running Advantage 2.4 fr, HR 2.35 rr, great combo. dhr 2.35 was a good rr tire too.

    I hate Nevs, tried a 2.35 st, slow as molassas. The Advantage has better grip and rolls fast too. Unfortunately, not durable enough as a rr tire...

  42. #42
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    The High Roller definately holds a line through the corners than the Eskar. Rolling might have been a hint slower. The HR seemed to deflect off the roots/rocks more so I will lower pressures for the next try.
    Nothing to see here.

  43. #43
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA
    The High Roller definately holds a line through the corners than the Eskar. Rolling might have been a hint slower. The HR seemed to deflect off the roots/rocks more so I will lower pressures for the next try.
    What pressure are you running the HRs? I run 18PSI up front with a 2.7", 20PSI with a 2.5" and 28PSI in rear with a 2.35".
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  44. #44
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Started at 35 but let an unknown amount out trailside. I will start at 30psi tomorrow (got to take advantge of these 70 degree December days!)
    Last edited by SSINGA; 12-10-2007 at 07:28 AM.
    Nothing to see here.

  45. #45
    mtbr platinum member
    Reputation: bikerx40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,426
    I'm not too sure what the obsession is with the HR's. From what I've read, I thought that it would be ideal for our high-desert climate with mostly hardpack/loose-over-hardpack, but my 2.35" LUST versions are the scariest tire I've ever tried. I've never slipped out or washed out more than while using this tire. The DHF 60a is almost as terrible, but is almost tolerable as a rear tire in these conditions. Granted, our terrain is not ideal for traction, but these two take the cake for the worst I've tried in several years. The HR is also the absolute slowest tire I've ever used, even beating out the Nevegal IMHO. Two thumbs down for these two. Maybe a softer compound would redeem itself, but I'm sure it wouldn't help the rolling resistance any...
    I stopped driving my bike into my garage - I'm now protected with Roof Rack Ranger app for my iPhone.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wilks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,364
    High Rollers are the tire of choice for our crew too - we ride the same types of trails as Zilla - they worked well in the partly frozen snow / ice on todays ride......

  47. #47
    fried stuff with cheese
    Reputation: Locotiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,290
    I also ride "east coast" terrain and although I didn't dislike them I wasn't too impressed with the HR. Calling that tire a 2.35 is just silly. For a week or two I ran a Fat Albert front with a HR rear (I had no other spare ust tire) and that was interesting. The rear broke loose so much faster I was joking around that I could steer the bike better by breaking the back end loose than turning the wheel. For me, screw the weight, Fat Albert front and rear. Best tires I've run in a while. I'll probably run BB's at some point on the RFX. I also wouldn't mind checking out the Conti Mountain Kings but unsure if I will.
    Egg

  48. #48
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    The Fat Albert was one of my favorite front tires. Till it started shedding knobs. Since it was almost twice the price of the MHRs and tough to find at times I never had a Fat Albert in the rear... hmmm maybe I could have said that better.

    I'm not surprised the MHRs don't impress in radically different terrain out West, I feel the same way about the Nevy/BG combo as B40X does about the MHRs on his side of the rock.

    I think terrain/region and maybe psi should be default qualifiers when somebody rates a tire.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    Zilla- this may be the second time I have heard you ask for a Fat Albert in the rear

    It is definitely one of my favorite tires and has not shed any knobbies in the few months I have used it (I use the 2.25 but am moving to the 2.35).

  50. #50
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    I hear ya Flyer,
    I've got alot of tight corners lined with grippy pointy rocks, I can hear loud PING' as the knobs get pulled and released... worst case sinereo for tires no doubt.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    Your terrain is definitely different from what I ride. I see how that would send knobbies to an early grave.

  52. #52
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,399
    The first FA I ran shredded some knobs but this last one has held up great, no knob shreddage after nearly a year on the front of the Burner, they changed the sidewalls but not sure about the tread compound, but it has held up better. I think it's a great high volume tire for a trail type bike but maybe not knobby enough for the RFX and the kinda riding it sees

    I've been running a Fire FR up front and a Tioga Factory DH in the back on the RFX for the last 2 seasons and really like the combo for our terrain, the Tioga is a great tire and not a true dual ply DH tire but has held up without issue. For the resorts I bought some DH Nevegals, man those things are tanks, 1500g each and another 500g ea for the tubes, add's 4lbs to the bike but worth it for places like Keystone.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bollox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    I've got alot of tight corners lined with grippy pointy rocks, I can hear loud PING' as the knobs get pulled and released... worst case sinereo for tires no doubt.
    Yeah, thats a terrible sound. I always expect it to be accompanied by a "ssssSSSS" but so far thats never happened.

    I ride with with Wilks and run my tubed 2.35 HR's at 28-30 PSI. So far the best all round tire we've found for Ringwood's rocks and roots. Most pinch flat resistant tire I've experienced this side of 1000g.
    Forward progress by Brute Force and Bloody Ignorance.

  54. #54
    fried stuff with cheese
    Reputation: Locotiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,290
    I was reluctant to try the Fat Alberts because of everyone saying they lost knobs. They must have updated how they make them or with what they make them with because, trust me, mine see nothing but sharp rock. Not one lost knob in a little over 800 miles. Ran them in the snow last weekend and they were great.
    I find that they stick like glue to bare rock. (Lynn woods)
    To each his own though. Makes life interesting. I will admit fully that it is much more satisfying to have a Fat Albert in the rear verses just an Albert. Ok, off to take a quick shower.....with all my clothes on......while laying in a fetal position.
    Egg

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    Good stuff- I'll let you know how a Fat Albert feels once I wear out the Albert

  56. #56
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Took the MHR out for another run today and I have to say that I am impressed at it's handling for such a skinny tire. I started with lower pressures today, around 30 PSI. I also took a click or two of HSC out of the fork and shock to assist the tire in getting over obsticles due to it's lack of volume.

    It's just too bad it has to be a 930g tire. 20g more than a Betty at nearly 1/2" less width and loads less volume. On the plus side, you ain't ripping one of these sidewalls!!
    Nothing to see here.

  57. #57
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    The MHR is 20g more that a tubeless Betty?
    I got ~890g for my 2.35 UST MHRs, one actually closer to 850...others have posted around 900g.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  58. #58
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    The MHR is 20g more that a tubeless Betty?
    I got ~890g for my 2.35 UST MHRs, one actually closer to 850...others have posted around 900g.
    20g more than old Betty. Not sure what the new BB UST will be???
    Nothing to see here.

  59. #59
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    Gotcha, it's kinda tough to say it's heavier than the BB if you don't include the tube then...or are you running the BB as a tubless? If so, what method Laytex? rimstrip? crossed fingers?
    (no dig on BB I chaff at all non-ust tubless)
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    The new UST Betty is a claimed 980 grams.

  61. #61
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikezilla
    Gotcha, it's kinda tough to say it's heavier than the BB if you don't include the tube then...or are you running the BB as a tubless? If so, what method Laytex? rimstrip? crossed fingers?
    (no dig on BB I chaff at all non-ust tubless)
    I was using with goop in the Stans rim with no strip. Also have goop in the MHR.
    Nothing to see here.

  62. #62
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    Gotcha. Now I'll chafe about using spooge...
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Prof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,165
    My Highroller UST ST is 960 grm's.
    It's great for Downhill but the soft compound makes it a little slow rolling,what I would really want is a 60a compound for the rear can you get such a thing over there?
    Stay off the brakes

  64. #64
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof
    My Highroller UST ST is 960 grm's.
    It's great for Downhill but the soft compound makes it a little slow rolling,what I would really want is a 60a compound for the rear can you get such a thing over there?
    the 2.35 LUST says it's a 70a on the Maxxis site
    Nothing to see here.

  65. #65
    Lay off the Levers
    Reputation: Bikezilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,128
    Prof another consideration... My MHR 2.1s weighed in at 680. They're very narrow but very fast rolling, Zilla proof and have great climbing traction for a skinny tire, in my terrain. A little sketchy on corners though.
    I guess it depends on what you're after. Compared to the bigger tires, they keep me out of the granny and that makes me happy. I never thought I'd be happy with such a skinny tire but I am.

    I dounno tire weights that well,
    Is 960g really heavy for a 2.3-ish UST or std with a regular tube? Not that I'll run tubes if I can avoid it.
    Faster is better, even when it's not.

  66. #66
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,270
    26er tire shootouts are ghey....get some real tires and I will think about reading it

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    Well, just read the 26er shootout and extrapolate the results to the 29er size. The results will just be a little more ghey and flexy- just perfect for you

  68. #68
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer
    Well, just read the 26er shootout and extrapolate the results to the 29er size. The results will just be a little more ghey and flexy- just perfect for you
    who said anything about 29ers? 29ers are ghey....i am talking 650B and in fact, tscheezy is knitting me a pair of 650B frankentires as I type this

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Prof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,165

    Ta Chaps

    "the 2.35 LUST says it's a 70a on the Maxxis site"


    "Prof another consideration... My MHR 2.1s weighed in at 680. They're very narrow but very fast rolling, Zilla proof and have great climbing traction for a skinny tire, in my terrain. A little sketchy on corners though.
    I guess it depends on what you're after. Compared to the bigger tires, they keep me out of the granny and that makes me happy. I never thought I'd be happy with such a skinny tire but I am.

    I dounno tire weights that well,
    Is 960g really heavy for a 2.3-ish UST or std with a regular tube? Not that I'll run tubes if I can avoid it."

    This is for the Pack and next year's Mega, Only UST is reliable enough to cope with that terrain (think football sized rocks and moraine)

    The UST super tacky UST is 960.
    If I can I always run a soft front and a hard rear

    I can't get the Lust hard compound 2.35 UST over here, they just don't offer it in the UK
    Stay off the brakes

  70. #70
    what...?
    Reputation: jmtbkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    695
    Another vote for the Fat Alberts in 2.35. I've been using them for 2 years now and everything else I try does not give me the confidence of the FA's. I'm using the front specifics and the regular version for the rear. Still have 2 front onlys in the garage - heehee!!
    Without love in a dream it will never come true

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,974
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    who said anything about 29ers? 29ers are ghey....i am talking 650B and in fact, tscheezy is knitting me a pair of 650B frankentires as I type this
    tsc can knit and cross stitch. Make sure he is cross stitching the sidewalls. That's what you need.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tkul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    611
    Hello!

    I had Fat Alberts and really like them!
    For price/value you can`t go wrong there (mine were 15€ each - 2.35 stell bead).
    Problem with Fat Alberts is when things get a bit wet, and you have to control your bike over roots and rocks. In this situation it`ll fail, and you are going to be busy trying to stay on the bike.

    Recently changed to Maxxis Highrollers 2.35 ST (front) and 60A (rear).
    This tire combination is very good all over I ride.
    They roll OK, weight a little over my previous Fat Albert... but that ST rubber on the front, will give confidence where you need!
    If you are not a weight weeny, and have the torque in your legs, I think it`s well worthy!

    Another tire that is on my list is: Nobby Nic 2.4

Members who have read this thread: 1

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.