Tire test results from german "bike" magazine- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 336
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239

    Tire test results from german "bike" magazine

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CC-Race:

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

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

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

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

    all mountain tires

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

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

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

    enduro tires

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

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

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

  3. #3

    Reputation:
    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??

  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
    20,787
    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
    8,230
    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
    179
    And the Race Kings..

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

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

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

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,230
    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
    917
    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!
    Specialized Epic Expert Evo
    Ibex Asta Pro SE & Giant XTC-2

  17. #17
    mountain biker
    Reputation: slyfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    535
    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

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    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

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Luckily I put on new Rampages before I moved to Germany. Great tires.

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    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
    950
    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

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Believe me, add me to the collective of "we"

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

    Now to see which french fries did well on the tests

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

    Data!

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

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    685
    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
    6,762
    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
    12,383
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy
    I'd love to see the results on a spread sheet format, anyone know how to put it in on Excel? I have "read only" software in Windows Home edition.
    Go to docs.google.com and do your own.
    "...the people get the government they deserve..."
    suum quique

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,739
    This is great, thanks so much for posting it.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  34. #34

    Reputation:
    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.

  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
    265

    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
    1,908
    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
    291

    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
    634
    It looks like all their tests are online for free with the exception of the latest one which requires a 2 euro fee:
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...ouren_0606.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...eride_0706.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...eifen_0705.pdf
    http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premiu...ntest_0804.pdf

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

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

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,762
    the tests are done on a smooth drum right?
    So, how a tire rolls on dirt (at various pressures for optimum grip) may not be quite the same.

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

  51. #51

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

    It would be interested to know who is funding this research. It may be my skeptical mind, but Schewalbe got five stars in all the tires and in all the categories (check the reports on the web). no other tire got all five stars in all the categories. I dont disagree that they make good tires, but so do some other tire manufacturer.

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

  53. #53
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,884
    Current data in spreadsheet....
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Check my Site

  54. #54

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    306
    nice work Warp. thanks.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    mibro 2.25
    rolling resistance: 22,3 watt
    flattening height: 50cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

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

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,775
    Couple things to note about these german tests:

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

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

  57. #57
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,884
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    2. From what it seems, the best tires in these German Tests always seem to be the german/euro tires, like schwalbe, continental, etc. Does anyone else find this suspect?
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

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

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

  58. #58
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

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

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

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

  59. #59
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,787
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy

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

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp
    Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

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

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

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

  61. #61
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,884
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    However, I still maintain that their "scientific backing" of testing on a steel drum is flawed. The faster tire on the drum will not nescessarily be the faster on the trail.
    I wouldn't say it's flawed. While not perfect, it's a good indicator.

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

    Not perfect? Hell yeah.

    Flawed? Not.

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

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    634
    On the Google wattage list a guy (Robert Chung) developed a method to calculate CdA and Crr for time trialers by doing multiple laps on a closed course with a power meter. It should be possible to calculate Crr using the same method on a mountain bike, especially since wind resistance is not as big of a factor.

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

  64. #64

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

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

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

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by groovastic
    No!
    It's just the energy you loose beacuse of a tire traction. You should count in the energy of pushing 10 or more kilos of your bike, and it's perhaps ten times higher than loss of energy caused by tire traction.
    So, I'm gonna make up some numbers, let's say you need 500 W to get your bike moving at certain speed and 22,3 W more to cover the energy loss caused by Mibro (522,3 W all together) and 50 W more for Nevegals (550 W alltogether)
    Hope this helps...

    Thanks! That makes sense.

  66. #66
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Orca
    I cannot say if the study is flawed or not. I don’t see a good description of the instruments, methods used and description of findings. for example, when one tire gets 4 out of 6 in traction, what type of surface are we talking about (rocks, roots, hardpack, wet, dry, snow?)? Same goes with the cornering.
    I agree...however if you look at the mags where this tests are..there is usually a good part (at least half a page) describing exactly what you are mentioning.... I can try and find one such example in the pile of german mags I have around..... the description is not super detailed (as one would do for describing a scientific experiment for an article), but it you get a clear idea aout the test conditions involved..

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

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

    Good Dirt!

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

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

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

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

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

    Cheers!

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

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,395

    That's true

    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus
    Thanks! That makes sense.

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

  73. #73
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,560
    Quote Originally Posted by MightySchmoePong
    But NOBODY puts out 500 watts for an appreciable amount of time (I.e. > 30 minutes). 300+ is really good for an average sized Mountain Biker, and in that context 25-30 watts is almost 10% of a persons power. That's HUGE.
    And just a meager 5 watts difference over an entire ride of 2-3 hours is huge as well. Yep, RR junky here.

    P

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

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

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

    V.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,809
    I've had both the 2.1 UST Ignitor and the 2.35 UST ignitor, and the test results reflect my experience with these tires. Believe it or not, at the same pressure, the wider tire has less rolling resistance. Additionally, the 2.35 did not corner as well as the 2.1, maybe because in the UST version, it is a 70a durometer, where the 2.1 is 62a.

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


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

    What sort of rim did they use for the test?

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

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

  77. #77
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,108
    Hutchinson Python (airlight version)? - curious to see if rubber compound makes a big difference

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

  78. #78
    dcb
    dcb is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    271
    This study back up a gut feeling I've had about an older 2.25 UST Racing Ralph I've had for a while. I keep on switching it out for a lighter tire (not Schwalbes) but I always feel like I've had an increase in rr with the tires I've tried. I feel better riding with a real UST up front.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    519
    Sorry, didn't read through whole thread, at work...

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

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

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

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

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

  81. #81
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,108
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    i dont have time right now. i will edit the tested hutchinson tires tomorrow.
    Hey, no rush at all. Take your time.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

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

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

    added

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

    would like 2,35 ST and normal 60a

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

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

  86. #86

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,457
    Henry, tell me if you're interested in testing Panaracer Rampages. I have a nearly new set on my rig and I'm in NRW, but will be finalizing my move to Sachsen on Wednesday.

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

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

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

    great read btw, thanks to those who contributed!

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    Henry, tell me if you're interested in testing Panaracer Rampages. I have a nearly new set on my rig and I'm in NRW, but will be finalizing my move to Sachsen on Wednesday.
    Are you running 2.35 Rampages both front & rear? Are they equally good on front & rear? How do they compare to Nevegals if you can?

  90. #90
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,456
    Quote Originally Posted by V.P.
    Anyone knows how WTB weirwolf 2.5 does in the tests?

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

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


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

  91. #91

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

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

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

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

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

    Viva Germany

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

  93. #93
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,456
    Kenda Nevegal 2.1 DTC? (gotta be less RR than the 2.35 (>50watt)

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

  95. #95
    Ridin' dirty!
    Reputation: cdalemaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,948
    I agree with mostly everyone in here that this study is more of a basic indicator.....How well a tire performs depends on the type of terrain, tire pressure, temperature, riding style etc.
    Years ago a bunch of mountainbikes were tested in Germany and the majority that "Survived" the torture test were US made.....so don't think that they just give German made products good reviews.
    "Common sense isn't always that common!"
    Custom Prophet and Custom Delta V

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

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,135
    Great thread.
    Thanks for all the work.
    Btw, Mutanos 2.4 (really about 2.29s) are lighter than the Mutano 2.24s.
    Love the Mutanos 2.4 worn down to simi slicks they still handle pretty well.

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

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

    Correct Understanding

    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

    Did I read that right?

    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

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

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

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

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

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    5,521
    Quote Originally Posted by MISTER FUNKTASTIC
    Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    hi again!

    there will be a new test in the next "bike", available at 12th august.
    i will edit more then.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    good news everyone:

    many new tests will be edited!

    schwalbe rocket ron, the NEW fat albert front and rear, continental rubber queen 2.2 and 2.4, ritchey zmax premonition, speci purgatory, maxxis monorail, ritchey zmax intuition, wtb wolverine and maxxis ardent.

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i cant edit the first thread.

    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
    Last edited by henryhb; 08-12-2008 at 10:17 AM.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    569
    So which Racing Ralf is fastest?

    The Tubeless version has lower resistance, but is heavier by 130gr.

    I want to buy a set, but I am not sure which one to get, tubeless or not.

    Of course, I will run both of them tubeless with Stans juice.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Henry, which Maxxis Ardent was tested? The 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 3C version, the 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 60a version, or the 2.4 folding bead single ply version? Each one will perform differently.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell
    Henry, which Maxxis Ardent was tested? The 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 3C version, the 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 60a version, or the 2.4 folding bead single ply version? Each one will perform differently.
    i´ve edited the missing information.
    the 60a folding version has been tested.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    30
    henryhb, can you please state the casing and tread widths for both the Continental Rubber Queen 2.2 and 2.4, and the tester's impression judgement of each. Thanks.
    Last edited by Gee Up; 08-12-2008 at 11:23 AM.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Gee Up
    henryhb, can you please state the casing and tread widths for both the Continental Rubber Queen 2.2 and 2.4, and the tester's impression judgement of each. Thanks.
    2.2 rubber queen
    56,3mm/56,4mm wide, no rim mentioned.
    (translated by me, so sorry for the bad english)
    "the 2.2" RW is only slighty smaller than the 2.4" one. depending on the different rubber (other kind of black chili compound) it is remarkable faster. it is a good allround tire with reliable controll at not too muddy surfaces.a little bit heavier than the direct opposition."

    2.4" rubber queen (black chili too)
    57,8mm/58,6mm
    (translated by me, too)
    "the black chili compound enables great adhesion, especially on wet stones and roots, causes higher rolling resistance, too. super downhill performance but limited touring suitability."

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,135
    Has this been added yet ?
    Great thread btw.
    http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Download...llustrated.pdf

  110. #110
    They call me Shoogs
    Reputation: TripleThreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by ghawk
    Has this been added yet ?
    Great thread btw.
    http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Download...llustrated.pdf

    great read, thanks.

    Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

  111. #111
    No pain no gain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    85
    Here is an additional link from a similiar German Test in 2004, with many of these tires still on the market: http://www.mckramppi.com/en/bike04re...asanalyysi.htm

  112. #112
    No pain no gain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    85
    Thanks for all your time on this thread - it's some of the best data on tires I have seen! Do you have anything on a Maxxis Advantage 2.25 or Specialized Eskar 2.3; these two tires were recently rated highly in the Mountan Bike Action September 2008 tire shoot out (why does MBA continue to rate the Nevegals so high, when they are the slowest tire on the trail for width and weight? After I chewed up 3 nev's on the rear of my Yeti 575, I put a Continental Gravity on and have never looked back... BETTER traction and far faster!).
    Cheers!

  113. #113
    she keep you buying rats
    Reputation: WeakMite's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    299
    This thread should be a sticky.... or maybe make a sticky thread with all test data members find (for hubs and tires and all wheel components).
    ;-)

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,197
    How does the NN UST compare to the regular NN?
    don't sweat the petty things, and pet the sweaty things

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    271
    Intense system 2 bless c3 2.0? It looks like a nice fast tire

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by rekibtm
    How does the NN UST compare to the regular NN?
    Heavier, slightly wider and less rolling resistance (2.25 UST Vs. 2.25).

  117. #117
    mountain biker
    Reputation: slyfink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    535
    I just replaced my rear Scwalbe Albert UST with a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller UST. Though I didn't notice the increased RR, I certainly appreciated the DRASTIC improvement in traction on the wet roots and rocks. I'm convinced I wouldn't have been able to ride at least 15%-20% of the trail had I been on my Alberts.

    Looking at the test, I'm also glad I went with the High Roller over the Nevegals too, I find they do better on wet and slick rocks and roots.

    I still have the Albert on the front, and I like it a lot there... I think Albert front and High Roller rear is a great combo for xc/am riding when the conditions are wet...
    continuous growth is the strategy of a cancer cell.

  118. #118
    They call me Shoogs
    Reputation: TripleThreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    150
    A bump to a very informative thread

    Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,821
    Quote Originally Posted by slyfink
    I just replaced my rear Scwalbe Albert UST with a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller UST. Though I didn't notice the increased RR, I certainly appreciated the DRASTIC improvement in traction on the wet roots and rocks. I'm convinced I wouldn't have been able to ride at least 15%-20% of the trail had I been on my Alberts.

    Looking at the test, I'm also glad I went with the High Roller over the Nevegals too, I find they do better on wet and slick rocks and roots.

    I still have the Albert on the front, and I like it a lot there... I think Albert front and High Roller rear is a great combo for xc/am riding when the conditions are wet...

    I switched from a Nevegal 2.35 (with Stans) front and a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller LUST rear tire to Continental Mountain King 2.4s (with Stans) and the difference is RR is amazing. The MK rolls so much faster it blows me away. The NEV/HR combo has much better grip, unbelievably good really, but the MK are good enough and for me, the RR makes up for it.

    But I do agree, when I tried to ride the same lines with the MK as I had with the HR, I ended up on my ass.

  120. #120
    ...
    Reputation: Porchsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    603

    Thanks man!

    Thanks man, great thread.

    2.4 Nobby Nics are my favorite tire ever, and I've got a tire "problem".

    Porch
    "If we were Vikings, Rocky Mountain aspen stands would be our Vahalla and its singletrack our bounty" - Mtn Flyer Mag #14

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    edit: answering to the first post didnt work...

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,197
    make this sticky!
    don't sweat the petty things, and pet the sweaty things

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    it would be nice if a mod/admin could add post number 3 of page 5 to my first or second post on the first page so everybody can see all tests.
    how can i reach the mods/admins? reporting posts is only allowed for harresment.

  124. #124
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,787
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    it would be nice if a mod/admin could add post number 3 of page 5 to my first or second post on the first page so everybody can see all tests.
    how can i reach the mods/admins? reporting posts is only allowed for harresment.

    I could help out but I need the post number (top right corner of the post) since the number of posts displayed per page can be set different in the preferences


    you mean post #103???

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    yes i mean post 103! can you edit it to the first page?

  126. #126
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,787
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    yes i mean post 103! can you edit it to the first page?


    I edited post #2 and added the text of post #103

  127. #127
    Tire Geek O_o
    Reputation: cesalec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by scarsellone
    Any Bontrager tires tested?
    They sok....

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    big thx!

  129. #129
    Nightriding rules SuperModerator
    Reputation: crisillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    20,787
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    big thx!

    no problem!

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    618
    sticky please!

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    thx alot for all the good feedback and for making this thread sticky. i will keep it up-to-date if there are any new tests around in the magazines.

  132. #132
    It's the axle
    Reputation: Gregg K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,759
    I will second what "Vespa" said-

    With respect to the Nevegal and Mountain King, both UST tires.

    I spent the summer on the MK 2.4. The last three days I've spent on the Nevegal 2.35.

    They aren't even close in terms of cornering. The Nevegal is like being on a rail. I simply cannot believe these tires. I'm lousy at making comparisons. I never do it. But this is astonishing. So I disagree with the test results that show these as the same.

    The Nevegal is much more difficult to get rolling. Unless I just had three bad days in a row, the Nevegal is an energy sap. I don't think it's due to it's 50+ watts as much as the added half pound per tire. That's a lot of weight to be accelerating.

    By the way, is there a link to the tests?

    And thanks for this thread. Although it is limited. But it would take a long time to do the tests in vivo.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gman086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,707
    Lets see some figs for the Maxxis Minion 2.35 single plys please!

    Have FUN!

    G MAN
    Last edited by Gman086; 10-27-2008 at 12:41 AM.
    "There's two shuttles, one to the top and one to the hospital" I LOVE this place!!!

  134. #134

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4

    Stan's Crows/Ravens

    What about Stan's tires any data on those? The RR must be really good, wonder how the traction rates?

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i have a lot to do at work right now. i will search for tests in the next week.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    256
    Henry,

    I know you are busy, sorry can you check the figures you have written for Small Block 8? Is the RR correct?

    Many thanks..

    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)

    When the rolling resistance for Mountain King and Big Betty are less??

    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

    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
    ____________________
    Ibis Tranny 2009
    Ibis Mojo 2008
    Litespeed Pisgar 2004
    Pinnarello Dogma FP2006

  137. #137
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,560
    Quote Originally Posted by GBR1
    Henry,

    I know you are busy, sorry can you check the figures you have written for Small Block 8? Is the RR correct?

    When the rolling resistance for Mountain King and Big Betty are less??
    I run both SB8 & BB tires, and can say that real world RR is pretty similar to those numbers. RR is about much more than just knob size and array. Rubber compound and casing have huge effects.

    P

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    I run both SB8 & BB tires, and can say that real world RR is pretty similar to those numbers. RR is about much more than just knob size and array. Rubber compound and casing have huge effects.

    P
    Thanks for the quick reply. This is my personal experience as well. I am amazed at the amount of people that say SB8 have low rolling resistance, when I used them I was not that impressed with that aspect of the tire!!
    ____________________
    Ibis Tranny 2009
    Ibis Mojo 2008
    Litespeed Pisgar 2004
    Pinnarello Dogma FP2006

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: groovastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    101
    Hi!
    And what about Mountain king 2,2" Protection?
    Do you possibly have the results?
    Cheers!

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    246
    OK, so I'm picking up a set of Mavic 819s with DT 240s. What's the best tubeless xc tire in terms of traction, rolling resistance and thorn resistance? I guess in that order since I will load them with sealant.

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    sadly, there were only one or two tests of wtb products. wtb tires arent available easy here in germany.
    i used the weirwolf 2.5" a lot and loved it.

  142. #142
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    sadly, there were only one or two tests of wtb products. wtb tires arent available easy here in germany.
    i used the weirwolf 2.5" a lot and loved it.
    Are they a true 2.5? Do you use them front and rear?

    The trails around here are a mix of sharp rocks, roots, loose dirt/gravel, and sometimes light mud. Are you using the normal 2.5 or the LT?

    Thanks!
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    38

    tubes?

    Apologies if this was asked and answered earlier, but were tubes used in non-UST tires for the tests? I understand that the same tire can have substantially different rolling resistances with and without a tube (e.g. with a tubeless conversion).

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Richy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    253
    I believe they are tubed unless otherwise stated.
    UK-Biking Shop now live - Also follow us on Facebook and Twitter

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: likeybikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Datalogger
    Are they a true 2.5? Do you use them front and rear?

    The trails around here are a mix of sharp rocks, roots, loose dirt/gravel, and sometimes light mud. Are you using the normal 2.5 or the LT?

    Thanks!
    I was extremely disappointed to purchase this tire and discover that the edges of the knobs measure close to 2.5", but the casing is nowhere near 2.5". On a 19mm wide rim the WeirWolf 26x2.5 ballooned to 52mm (about 2.1"). The casing on my Specialized The Captain 26x2.2" tire is wider than the WeirWolf's casing. It seems silly to me to measure knob width and call that the tire's width. A company could just make one tire on a 2.0" casing and trim the knobs to give a whole range of tire sizes. The wide tire in the product line would be the monstrous 4.0" wide Millipede sporting super-long feelers as cornering knobs.

  146. #146
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks, I would be mounting them on a 19mm rim (819) also. Any ride impressions? Front or rear usage?
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevbikemad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,054

    How Rolling Resistance is measured in these tests

    ok, first off, I AM NOT a science guy AT ALL. so excuse me if this is stupid.

    i just want to clarify how the Rolling Resistance tests are done for the German Bike magazine tests.

    the OP says the following;
    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.


    Just to clarify - the watt rating is the difference between NO weight at 20 km/hr at 2.5 bar and the same, but adding 50kg load?

    If yes, here is my concern / question.

    What we see is the DIFFERENCE under load, but does that REALLY tell us which tire uses more or less watts? At least I don' t think so, because we don't know what the TOTAL watts are, we only know the DIFFERENCE between loaded and NOT loaded.

    For example, tire 1 may run at 50 watts with NO load, and 70 watts with load. So 20 watts difference. Which would seem very good.

    Tire 2 may run at 40 watts with NO load, and 65 watts with load. So 25 watts difference. Which would be rated at a higher Rolling Resistance rating using the method of BIKE. But it ACTUALLY has a lower total.

    Am I correct? Please clarify if I have misunderstood how the tests are performed.

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    634
    The way I understand the test they spin the tire up to speed and then zero the wattage measurement to remove the air resistance caused by the wheel spokes and tire knobs. Then they apply 50 kg force with the tire roller and take the wattage measurement. Essentially what they are doing is isolating the rolling resistance caused by the tire casing.
    It would be interesting to see how the air resistance caused by the tire tread affects the measurement. For instance the Kenda SB8 scores worse than the Schwalbe Nobby Nic in the rolling resistance measurement. If air resistance of both tires was factored in maybe the SB8 would come out on top with it's low profile knobs.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dynamite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5
    Hi! what's about Specy Eskar 2,3" Control? Has it been tested? Thanks for the report

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    162
    Lots of thorns here....I assume that a higher letter rating is more thorn proof [because handling gets worse]. So is e more thornproof than b? thnx.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    @ granpa:

    a is more thornproof than b, b more than c and so on.

    no tests for the 2.2" mountain king protection.
    no test for 2.35" minions.

    i am looking forward to the next year. there should be new tests in march.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    126

    Mibro's really that fast???

    I just accidently ended up with a pair of Mibro 2.25's. I checked your German testing and they are about the lowest rolling resistance in the group. Is that for real? I mean, that is a fairly "knobby" spaced-out tread. I assume that is in the Front tire orientation, as the Rear orientation ought to have more resistance. Haven't ridden them yet, and may not; they came with an ebay wheelset that is more chewed up than I expected, and I may try to return. But was curious about the tires Does the rolling resistance test really have any validity? .

  153. #153
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,560
    Quote Originally Posted by impatient
    I just accidently ended up with a pair of Mibro 2.25's. I checked your German testing and they are about the lowest rolling resistance in the group. Is that for real? ...
    The Mibro's have lots of opportunity to roll fast. They are a very clever design. The open middle allows the carcass to flex easily there, which will lower RR. Also, the soft rubber is in the middle, and the soft rubber conforms to the terrain easier than a hard rubber, again for better RR. Then, the higher rebound, hard rubber is on the sides, and more importantly on the sides of the carcass, where you want the rubber to spring back and give energy back for lower RR.

    So, in theory, they have a lot going for them.

    P

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    good news everyone:

    there will be new tests in the BIKE available from 13.1.2009. i will edit the results immediatly.

  155. #155
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Great, thanks henryhb!
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Holdsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    42
    Great stats very useful to me trying so hard to find the right tyre for my terrian

    Thanks

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    short news:

    tested tires are

    geax gato 2,1
    hutchinson cobra air light 2.25
    onza canis 2,25
    onza ibex dh 2,4
    specialized fast trak 2,0
    specialized sauserwind 2bliss 2,0
    vredestein black panther xtrac 2,0
    vredestein spotted cat 2,0

    seven spike tires have been tested, too:

    continental spike claw 240 2,1
    continental spike claw 120 2,1
    kenda klondike xt 2,1
    nokian freddies revenz 2,3
    nokian hakka wxc 2,1
    schwalbe ice spiker pro 2,1
    schwalbe marathon winter 1,75

    i will edit the full test results in the next days. too much work and a sick wife right now...

  158. #158
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks henryb! Best wishes to your wife!
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Hi Henry,

    Hope you wife is getting better and you'll find some time to post the latest results for us ! There are some new interesting tires in this test !

    Also, when you do, do you think you could include width at casing and thread as Bike usually provides ? It's also an important information to have since we know they always test all the tires at the same pressure on the drum (on which higher pressure / bigger volume gives a "harder tire" and consequently less RR in this specific situation)...

    Thanks in advance !

    Ps : when we get this latest results, I'm thinking I could make an excell table that include all the results and post it here... so I'm really looking forward to your results ;-)))

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    all tires except the ibex dh are CC tires. the ibex dh is a enduro tire.

    wide xx/yy : xx is carcass, yy is lug in mm

    geax gato 2.1
    RR: 28,4 watt
    flattening height: 50cm
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    wide 47,8/50,8mm

    hutchinson cobra air light 2,25
    RR: 26,8 watt
    puncture height: 60cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
    wide 52,7/52,3

    onza canis 2,25
    RR: 36,9 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    wide 51,6/54,3mm

    specialized fast trak lk 2,0
    RR: 26,6 watt
    flattening height: 65cm
    thorn: a
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
    wide 50,6/49,5mm

    specialized sauserwind 2bliss 2.0
    RR: 38,7 watt
    flattening height: 60cm
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    wide 49,4/50,9mm

    vredestein black panther xtrac 2,0
    RR: 25,6watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
    wide 49,3/48,8mm

    vredestein spotted cat 2,0
    RR: 23,5watt
    flattening height: 55cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 2/6 (more= the better)
    wide 50,7/51,0mm

    onza ibex dh 2,4
    RR: 41,8watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    wide 54,7/61,6mm

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    38

    tubes?

    henry b - do you know if tubes are installed when non-tubeless tires are tested? How about the tubeless tires? I understand from other threads that tubes add a lot of RR. Be interesting to see how non-tubeless tires test when converted to tubeless. Thanks,

    nmcaseman

  162. #162
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,560
    Interesting that in all those tests not one Michelin tire is tested.

    Doing the 'ol knob plucker-oo test, I've found the rubber to be significantly different on the Dry2 tire, than any other tire I've owned. It's long wearing and (not) grippy on wet like a high durometer rubber, but very flexible like a lower durometer (almost elastic-like). regardless, it grips quite well, and rolls stupid fast. I would love to see how the numbers stack up.

    P

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    Well...?

    Let's see the updated excel spreadsheet!

    Here's Warp's data formatted to read in order (best RR to worst):

    LINK

    Quote Originally Posted by xc-rider
    Hi Henry,

    Hope you wife is getting better and you'll find some time to post the latest results for us ! There are some new interesting tires in this test !

    Also, when you do, do you think you could include width at casing and thread as Bike usually provides ? It's also an important information to have since we know they always test all the tires at the same pressure on the drum (on which higher pressure / bigger volume gives a "harder tire" and consequently less RR in this specific situation)...

    Thanks in advance !

    Ps : when we get this latest results, I'm thinking I could make an excell table that include all the results and post it here... so I'm really looking forward to your results ;-)))
    Last edited by glenzx; 01-28-2009 at 02:49 PM.
    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P
    Interesting that in all those tests not one Michelin tire is tested.

    Doing the 'ol knob plucker-oo test, I've found the rubber to be significantly different on the Dry2 tire, than any other tire I've owned. It's long wearing and (not) grippy on wet like a high durometer rubber, but very flexible like a lower durometer (almost elastic-like). regardless, it grips quite well, and rolls stupid fast. I would love to see how the numbers stack up.

    P
    i have some results for the

    michelin mountain dry² 2,3:
    RR: 28,7 watt
    flattening height: 75cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
    All Mountain tire


    Michelin Mountain X´Treme 2.2 tubeless
    RR: 29,3 watt
    flattening height: 80cm
    thorn: c
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

  165. #165
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,560
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    i have some results for the

    michelin mountain dry² 2,3:...

    Michelin Mountain X´Treme 2.2 tubeless ...
    Nice one! Thanks Henryhb!

    P

  166. #166
    Ausfahrt - gut!
    Reputation: utheissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    79

    Links to the original test PDFs

    I downloaded PDFs of the tire tests online, looks like they don't have the latest Jan 09 version online yet though.

    Even though these are in German language, they are quite easy to understand if you followed this thread as they use many English terms...or is it because I speak German?
    Just keep in mind that they are testing the rolling resistance on a smooth surface and there might be differences to performance on real dirt surface. They mention this issue themselves actually.

    I thought they could come handy and put them online:
    Sept 08: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...fen_09_08_.pdf
    April 08: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...fung_04_08.pdf
    June 07: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...ifen_06_07.pdf
    July 06: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...ifen_07_06.pdf
    August 03: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_t...ifen_08_03.pdf

    I currently run 2.1 UST Weirwolfs on both wheels of my Haro VL 120 and the rear one is worn down. I think I am going to switch the front to the rear and the try a Nobby Nic in 2.25 as front tire...

    As soon as I can get the latest test, I will post it as well.

    uli

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ozhoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    47

    Tire Data

    In an attempt to improve on the original spread sheet, I've put this one together. I added weights, and some fancy color coding. And before anyone asks about the pink color, that's just how google interpreted it. I'm sure that some tires are missing and more than likely I buggered a few up, but it's editable by everyone, so feel free to fix it.

    O

  168. #168
    Fortes Fortuna Iuvat
    Reputation: Datalogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,214
    Awesome spreadsheet man, I've bookmarked it.
    Maverick Durance Ano-DUC32/C KING/XTR
    Mav ML8 Ano-DUC32/X0
    Mav ML8-DUC32/I9/XTR
    09 Spec. Demo-Totem-Ti DHX
    Norco Team DH

  169. #169

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregg K

    The Nevegal is much more difficult to get rolling. Unless I just had three bad days in a row, the Nevegal is an energy sap. I don't think it's due to it's 50+ watts as much as the added half pound per tire. That's a lot of weight to be accelerating.
    i agree
    i have nevgals (2.35's) on my khyber and they dont roll very good at all but as you said they have fantastic grip and thats why i have them

    i think im going to put some Schwalbe Racing Ralph's on my hard tail which currently has nevagals (2.1) which should make riding 100km easier

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Sorry I've been long to be back here.
    I'm finally making the excell file with all the test from Bike Magazin since August 2003.

    I've included all I could which means also tires width at casing and thread. It's interesting to see the evolution over the years --> in 2003, 2.3" tires were almost DH tires, now 2.2 - 2.3 almost are our friendly XC tires ;-)))

    The file on this link includes tests up to July 2005, I'm still working on it to add the tests from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Should be finished by tomorrow, I'll upload the link when updated.

    Here is for now :
    http://rapidshare.com/files/19626026...tests.xls.html

  171. #171
    Unfit Norwegian
    Reputation: Dazed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,260
    Thank you! Can't wait to see the newer results. That's where the interesting stuff is. Great work!

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Updated file :

    http://rapidshare.com/files/19630073...tests.xls.html

    The latest are in there... now only missing some from 2006-2007.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    411

    Didn't work for me........

    Quote Originally Posted by xc-rider
    Updated file :

    http://rapidshare.com/files/19630073...tests.xls.html

    The latest are in there... now only missing some from 2006-2007.
    This is the message I got when tried to upload:

    "This file is neither allocated to a Premium Account, or a Collector's Account, and can therefore only be downloaded 10 times.

    This limit is reached.

    To download this file, the uploader either needs to transfer this file into his/her Collector's Account, or upload the file again. The file can later be moved to a Collector's Account. The uploader just needs to click the delete link of the file to get further information."

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    Please try this link and let me know :
    http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=RZRIKEY4

    I still have to find a place where it can stay without any limitations of days or how many time it is downloaded...

    By the way, Henryhb if you are around, could you add the missing information for February 2009 test ??? --> Thorn resistance for Gato, Tpi count for each tire and bike magazin verdict. Thanks a lot in advance.

    I will work on the last ones missing tomorrow morning... but we are getting close to having a complete sum up of all of them (it took me hourssssss... so I hope you guys enjoy ;-))) ).

  175. #175
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,560
    Quote Originally Posted by xc-rider
    I still have to find a place where it can stay without any limitations of days or how many time it is downloaded....
    The "Upload Images" in the posts here allow you to upload .zip documents. So zip it and add to your post.

    P

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: xc-rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    99
    There you go, thanks for the good tip !!!
    Attached Files Attached Files

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ozhoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    47
    I've updated the google version using xc-riders data for the excel impaired folks out there.

    O

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    100
    So using the stats has anyone come up with the "best of" tires for each category?

  179. #179
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,366
    Interesting thread. I understand they can't test traction in a lot of different scenarios, but I have to say that the readings for traction don't match up with our local conditions (where wet stone / wood traction is what counts).

    I remember when nobby nics came out and everyone was raving about them. Suddenly they where on most bikes you would see. It happened to be a rare sunny month, when things came back to normal they disapered very quickly. Those tires are almost dangerous on the wet, they lose traction far quicker then a Nokian NBX or Maxxis (with one of their softer compaunds).

    It's a pity when your local conditions are completely different from the places reviews are done at. You have to take everything with a grain of salt, and rather go with what other local people have found to work.

  180. #180

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    42
    Yeah! I learn more here. Thank you to share the imformation.

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    340
    Is there any information in the test on a Continental Gravity 2.3 and the Continental Vapor Pro 2.1?

    Thanks

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    150

    New question here. WTB Wolverine 1.95

    Has the WTB Wolverine 1.95 been tested yet?

    Thanks, MTB

  183. #183
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,306
    I have 29er Nevegal front and rear, I wonder if it is worth swapping to the RR, or if this thread will make me spend a lot of money for nowt.

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    73
    Hi, iv got some ztr 7000 race rims, 33psi max, i was running NN 1.8 at 30 psi, then the weather changed so i put some RR 2.1 on at 30psi, iv put the NN back on now because at 30psi the 1.8 NN is much much faster and more grip even in the dry, can u confirm this on your tests, any one else found this out yet, if not try it. and let me now.

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kevbikemad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Nath01978
    Hi, iv got some ztr 7000 race rims, 33psi max, i was running NN 1.8 at 30 psi, then the weather changed so i put some RR 2.1 on at 30psi, iv put the NN back on now because at 30psi the 1.8 NN is much much faster and more grip even in the dry, can u confirm this on your tests, any one else found this out yet, if not try it. and let me now.
    well, that is the difference between these "tests" and the real world, real trails, real riders. it might get lower results on a drum at a certain PSI, but reality is different in my books.

    i made the mistake of using these "tests" and putting some 2.25 EVO racing ralphs on my wifes bike - slow rolling. tried all sorts of different PSI, different trails, with tubes and tubeless, we both felt they were slow rolling/sluggish. she went back to nokian NBX lites and the difference is HUGE. faster and still good traction.

    so use what you like and know works. a lab is not the right place to review tires.
    Last edited by kevbikemad; 06-05-2009 at 10:55 AM.

  186. #186
    Slow Patrol
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by kevbikemad
    What we see is the DIFFERENCE under load, but does that REALLY tell us which tire uses more or less watts? At least I don' t think so, because we don't know what the TOTAL watts are, we only know the DIFFERENCE between loaded and NOT loaded.

    For example, tire 1 may run at 50 watts with NO load, and 70 watts with load. So 20 watts difference. Which would seem very good.

    Tire 2 may run at 40 watts with NO load, and 65 watts with load. So 25 watts difference. Which would be rated at a higher Rolling Resistance rating using the method of BIKE. But it ACTUALLY has a lower total.

    Am I correct? Please clarify if I have misunderstood how the tests are performed.
    I'll agree with this. The difference measurement can be misleading. This is good info and probably correlates to an absolute resistance at some level but all my legs care about is full absolute resistance cranking up a hill.

  187. #187
    No pain no gain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    85

    Continental Gravity VS. Mountain King

    Two tires which appear to score the highest are the Continental Gravity and the Continental Mountain King.

    does anyone have any real world experience comparing these two tires in a 2.3 Gravity Protection and the 2.4 Mountain King protection on dry, if not rocky terrain. The Mountain kings weigh a little more but are higher volume, and the Gravity has more of a side lug for the corners.

    I have used the Gravity for 1 1/2 years and LOVE them for dry, dusty, rocky conditions. I did my own tire test including Nevegals (terribly slow), WTB Weirwolfs, Rampage (great front tire), Conti Verticals (flats easy), Maxxis Ignitor (small but good), Z max ect. and my favorite for rolling speed, puncture resistance and traction are by far the Continental Gravity but... how does the Gravity Pro compare to a 2.4 Mountain King protection ???

    I only buy protection versions for the Lava rock here in Central Oregon - excellent puncture resistance. I also run Stan's tubeless, and have run them down to 24 psi recently with NO issues on a Bontrager Duster 32 hole rim / industry 9 setup. Gravity seat awesome on this rim with no issues!

    For those that are interested, the Gravity is as tough as they come for puncture resistance unless you move up to a much heavy tire. When I did run tubes, I also never got pinch flats at 28 psi. This is really a great all mountain tire and you can get them at Cambria for around $25. - a steal for this quality of tire. But... is The MK pro better?

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    425

    Any idea...

    ...If the data would be relevant to 29er tires?
    "I can only assume chan slap is what happens when you get assaulted by Jackie Chan. I don't think anybody can prevent that."

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,003
    interesting.
    roccowt.
    rocnbikemeld

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d.n.s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    504
    thanks Henry! Donetsk and Kiev give you our respect!

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d.n.s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    504
    henryhb

    can you please make a test for kenda kinetiks 2,1?

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i dont make the tests. they are made by the german "bike" magazin.
    the kinetiks 2,1 havent been tested.

    good news:
    there are new downhill tires tested! i will edit the stats in the next days.

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    i just bought the new bike.

    new tested tires are:

    kenda excavator 2.35
    nokian nbx 2.3
    wtb dissent 2.3
    wtb prowler ss 2.3

    more in the next days

  194. #194
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,560
    Quote Originally Posted by henryhb
    i just bought the new bike.

    new tested tires are:

    kenda excavator 2.35
    nokian nbx 2.3
    wtb dissent 2.3
    wtb prowler ss 2.3

    more in the next days
    That should interesting, the Prowler SS's tread pattern looks a fast roller, but I'll bet it's not.

    Thank HenryHB, I look forward to the info.

    P

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    Couple things to note about these german tests:

    2. From what it seems, the best tires in these German Tests always seem to be the german/euro tires, like schwalbe, continental, etc. Does anyone else find this suspect?
    You read my mind. I was thinking the exact same thing - German Bias?

  196. #196
    Executive User - UK
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    799
    maybe...just maybe Germans build a better tyre!?

    As with all tests, I applaud anyone trying to find a test method which can produce some objective data but actual real world testing is of course the only way to confirm without any doubt which tyre is "best".

    Im very happy to read this data - it provides a good starting point for my own subjective tests.

  197. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    191
    any news on the excavator?

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    5,521
    Quote Originally Posted by vikingboy
    maybe...just maybe Germans build a better tyre!?

    As with all tests, I applaud anyone trying to find a test method which can produce some objective data but actual real world testing is of course the only way to confirm without any doubt which tyre is "best".

    Im very happy to read this data - it provides a good starting point for my own subjective tests.
    I must agree here as this is a good start point. I run the Spec Captain 2.0 which shows like 37 watt rolling resistance. I have tried a few others that have less, but I seeem to end up skidding a lot more.

    No tire is going to make you a good rider. It's bike skills on the down hill and the power output of the engine (you) on the uphills.
    Lead by my Lefty............... right down the trail, no brakes.

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,781
    Anything on the Panaracer XC Fire Pro?

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    239
    the four tires were tested under enduro aspects!

    kenda excavator 2.35
    RR: 41,6
    flattening height: 70
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

    nokian nbx 2.3
    RR: 29,1
    flattening height: 55
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

    wtb dissent 2.3
    RR: 43,4
    flattening height: 62,5
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

    wtb prowler ss 2.3
    RR: 41,5
    flattening height: 75
    thorn: d
    cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
    traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 7

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.