Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • 2.10 versus 2.35 racing ralphs
  • lowcogger
    Free Member

    for not too serious trail riding (cut gate area next week,first proper ride out) on a hardtail with mediocre front forks,which would be more suitable, 2.10 or 2.35? i appreciate that 2.35`s would be a little slower but would this be critical for just pottering about.lbs is doing 2.10 foldable @ £50 and 2.35 steel bead @ £40. my brain has turned to cheese after reading so many tyre reviews, i never had this problem when buying tyres for my honda st1100! :wink
    thanks.

    lowcogger
    Free Member

    hmm…no advice from anyone with experience?

    mrmo
    Free Member

    look at german shops….

    Not helping one bit i know.

    Personnally i didn’t like the racing ralphs i tried, but they were the old tread pattern so things may have changed. After getting the pressures right (it has made a HUGE difference) i am actually liking my Rocket Rons, they seem quite quick in 2.25.

    lowcogger
    Free Member

    thanks. rrs do seem a bit of a marmite when it comes choice,but youre never going to get 100% support for anything. really, i should have phrased my query differently. im really wondering about the difference of 2.10 v 2.35 in general as opposed to rrs in particular.my current bike is the first ive had with anything bigger than 1.95s.

    paul.

    Kryton57
    Full Member

    I have both, in the current pattern.

    Hard to differentiate when just rolling along except on a hard tail where the bigger tyre gives the obvious extra cushioning.

    On the trails though (same wheels) I find the bigger tyre is much more adept at rolling onto the edge and using the grip on the outside lugs. It acts much more like a “trail” tyre than a “race” tyre. Having said that the difference isnt a huge one.

    Personally I’d go for the bigger tyre for the hardtail with Snakeskin to defend against the rocks up there as Ralphs can be thin on the sidewall.

    lowcogger
    Free Member

    Kryton57 – Member

    I have both, in the current pattern.

    Hard to differentiate when just rolling along except on a hard tail where the bigger tyre gives the obvious extra cushioning.

    On the trails though (same wheels) I find the bigger tyre is much more adept at rolling onto the edge and using the grip on the outside lugs. It acts much more like a “trail” tyre than a “race” tyre. Having said that the difference isnt a huge one.

    Personally I’d go for the bigger tyre for the hardtail with Snakeskin to defend against the rocks up there as Ralphs can be thin on the sidewall

    thats great thanks, it doesnt sound like its going to be like pushing an elephant up the stairs if i opt for the 2.35`s.

    HarveyStedham
    Free Member

    Are the above prices each for a pair!? If Each they are crazy prices, even for a pair £40 for wire bead is high! For that price id much rather have kevlar bead, a 2.35 wire will be a fair amount heavier then a 2.1 kevlar. Your lbs not able to get in a pair of 2.35 kevlar for same price? If so i’d do that

    lowcogger
    Free Member

    the 2.35 wire bead are £20 each, 2.10 foldable £25 each.

    MulletusMaximus
    Free Member

    You need to be looking at Next Day Tyres. Good prices and 1st class service.

    lowcogger
    Free Member

    You need to be looking at Next Day Tyres. Good prices and 1st class service.

    that`s thrown a few more options into the mix ❓

    Jeffus
    Free Member

    I found I pinch flat with the 2.1 never happened with the 2.25’s 90Kg + in my gear.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

The topic ‘2.10 versus 2.35 racing ralphs’ is closed to new replies.