Best tires
Moderator: Moderator Team
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:40 pm
- Location: Michigan
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!
and Rolling resistance if you have tried Roll X, Fire XC, Intense System 1 or 2, or others.
Thanks!
- Frankie - B
- Admin - In the industry
- Posts: 6573
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
- Location: Drenthe, Holland
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.
If you want to see 'meh' content of me and my bike you can follow my life in pictures here!'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
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
I prefer the Mich. Wildgripper on the front.
Open to suggestions for a rear tyre.
Brian
same here. i use to ride and race with michelin tyre. climb like a lizard. 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:30 pm
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.
Well... low weight does help but not as much as RR.
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.
- Frankie - B
- Admin - In the industry
- Posts: 6573
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
- Location: Drenthe, Holland
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
If you want to see 'meh' content of me and my bike you can follow my life in pictures here!'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 10:30 pm
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
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.
- Frankie - B
- Admin - In the industry
- Posts: 6573
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
- Location: Drenthe, Holland
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!
If you want to see 'meh' content of me and my bike you can follow my life in pictures here!'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'
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.
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.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
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
Then its the priorities you allocate. I think its grip then rolling resistance but it will depend on the surface.
Brian