MTB tyres rolling resistance

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Furti
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:28 am
Location: Hungary

by Furti

Dear All,

Could you send me some links about this topic?
I really would like to use a low rolling resistance tyre at rear in next year with Stan's sealant.
My front tyre is given. It will be a conti explorer supersonic with 80g Stan sealant.
This year I used schwalbe skinny jimmy tyre with Michelin latex tube.
Thanks,
furti

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



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

by JK

Try Racing Ralphs in 2.25".

They are among the easiest rolling tires according to German 'BIKE' mag. If you want something lighter (but with less tire width), very fast rolling tires are the Michelin Comp S (2.0", around 450grams) and Nokian NBX Lite (more like 1.9", around 480grams)

User avatar
Furti
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:28 am
Location: Hungary

by Furti

I like schwalbe tyres and racing ralph is a good tyre but 2,25" maybe to wide for the Hungarian tracks. (I know the weight difference is anly 40-45g) Does the 2,1" has got also a good rolling resistance figure or it's higher?
f.
MTB XC and Marathon racer from Hungary
Trek 9.9 carbon :)


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

by JK

Not a modern MTB tire in that list...

@Furti: The 2.1 has a higher rolling resistance.

User avatar
Bruiser
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 1:59 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

by Bruiser

My appologies, I don't conduct tests, and I havn't found anything more recent.

Perhaps someone else can help us.

zach
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Port Hope, Canada

by zach

Panaracer TrailBlaster's 1.95" and weigh in at 500 grams each.

User avatar
Rec
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:07 pm

by Rec

I'm using the Racing Ralphs 2.25 tires with 1.8-1.9 bar of pressure in them and they roll very good, even on asphalt.
No one would believe this untill they had a go on my bike.

carlos
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:04 pm

by carlos

i think it will help you out.
Attachments
bike82003RL.jpg
hey
ho
lets go!

User avatar
eurorider
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:56 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

by eurorider

anybody know which RR that is with the Eclipse? ...2.1 or 2.25?

that way we would have a better idea on the difference that the eclipse makes over tubes...

User avatar
Frankie - B
Admin - In the industry
Posts: 6573
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

The only thing i can read in that diagram is that is is the one with the green bar.
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'
If you want to see 'meh' content of me and my bike you can follow my life in pictures here!

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Joeri
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:42 pm
Location: Holland

by Joeri

It's the 2.25 with the eclipse in the test.
Consider the fact that all the tires are tested at 2.5 bar.
A wider tire gives less rolling resistance at the same pressure.
The 2.25 off course is also heavier, take that in mind.
Consider that in real you put less pressure in a wider tire.
The nokian is smaller, lighter and is tested without eclipse.
So the nokian is the winner if you doesn't take grip into account.
According to nino the grip of the nokian's is well.
When climbing weight is getting more important.

Post Reply