Best tires

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
flat_chipmunk
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: Michigan

by flat_chipmunk

I am looking for recommendations on tire choice. I ride cross country with some sand, hardpack, and loose conditions so need a versatile setup. I want at least a TRUE 2.0 or 2.1 size. Please comment on Grip
and Rolling resistance if you have tried Roll X, Fire XC, Intense System 1 or 2, or others.
Thanks!

by Weenie


User avatar
Frankie - B
Administrator
Posts: 6591
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

I currently ride with michelin jett s Tires. And, in pretty much the same conditions as you do! no known problems what so ever. These baby's do their job. Nice cornering, and good acceleration. But the downside, Why?, they are heavy! (600+) be sure to take youre scales to the shop and weigh them all. Mine have a difference of 70 gr.
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

User avatar
Bruiser
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 1:59 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

by Bruiser

Fire XC grip and roll well but are rather heavy.
I prefer the Mich. Wildgripper on the front.
Open to suggestions for a rear tyre.

Brian

User avatar
Stylomilo
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:14 pm
Location: Singapore

by Stylomilo

same here. i use to ride and race with michelin tyre. climb like a lizard. :twisted: good too.
currently im using my training tires kenda kwick 1.7. it does help me climbing alot but it weight 445g per tire. i will choose maxxis flyweight for the front and trailraker for the rear for racing. both 1.95. both should weight below 400g each.
Crashman like crashing, feel the rythem and ride.

User avatar
Stylomilo
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:14 pm
Location: Singapore

by Stylomilo

flat_chipmunk, why do you need 2.1 tyres for XC. Aren't they weight so much?
Crashman like crashing, feel the rythem and ride.

Tim the Pineapple
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:30 pm

by Tim the Pineapple

Fire XC and Roll X have worst rolling resistance. I heard intense rolls much better. I personally think tire weight is irrelevent on MTB, the biggest difference youre feel is the rolling resistance.

Well... low weight does help but not as much as RR.

Ion
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Czech Republic

by Ion

I ride in similar condition and found that Kenda Klimax Lite is one that handles all terrain rather well. I've tried Conti Twister Sup, Maxxis Flyweight 330, Kenda Kozmic Lite, Panaracer Speedblaster/Trailblaster and Schwalbe Fast Fred and none compare to allrounder ability of the Klimax Lite.

User avatar
Frankie - B
Administrator
Posts: 6591
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

Yeah, but there was asked about 2.0, 2.1 inch tires. All mentioned above, axcept of the fast fred do not match those criteria :oops:
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

JK
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2002 7:49 pm
Location: The Netherlands - Europe

by JK

Try Nokian's NBX Lite 2.0

They are definetly NOT true 2.0", but who cares! It's about grip, weight (acceleration) and rolling resistance. In my book these are one of the best compromises around. They have lots of grip and roll very lightly- you do not hear them on asphalt. I allways race on semi-slicks, but this one makes me losing my religion... Just make sure to weigh them if you are a true weight weenie - the weights are all over the place: Mine is 497gr/ advertised 470. :cry:

Tim the Pineapple
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:30 pm

by Tim the Pineapple

Frankie - B wrote:Yeah, but there was asked about 2.0, 2.1 inch tires. All mentioned above, axcept of the fast fred do not match those criteria :oops:


How fast does jet s roll compared to fast fred light 2.0 ?
I was thinking of getting the jet s in 1.6" rather than the regular 2.0" version.

User avatar
Frankie - B
Administrator
Posts: 6591
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

Tim the Pineapple wrote:How fast does jet s roll compared to fast fred light 2.0 ? I was thinking of getting the jet s in 1.6" rather than the regular 2.0" version.


Oh, difficult :?

The FF is lighter than the jett (approx 200+ gr. per tire), but the jet has lower roling resistance. Keep in mind that a smaller (1.6) tire has to be inflated to a higher preasure than the bigger versions (2.0 +) The more width a tire has, the lighter it is going to roll! :D
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

User avatar
Tippster
Posts: 2520
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:11 pm
Location: Frederica (Denmark)

by Tippster

My vocabluary is poor (despite being british).

My logic tells me that a higher pressure will be needed to inflate a smaller tyre. However you should be able to replicate the same shock absorption rates of the tyre itself on a 1.7 tyre as a 2.1 tyre.

Give the same shock absorption rate of the tyre, the tyre with the narrower width will have a smaller contact area.

Narrow tyre Advantages
Less weight
Less friction (rolling resistence)

Wide tyre Advantages
More grip


Have I looked at this too simply?
I'm assuming the same shock absorption rates and the same tyre material. The choice of tyre width to me is narrow tryre less weight and contact area, Vs wide tyre better grip weighs more.

User avatar
Bruiser
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 1:59 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

by Bruiser

No that's how I measure the qaulities of a tyre and its use.

Then its the priorities you allocate. I think its grip then rolling resistance but it will depend on the surface.

Brian

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post