Reccomend me the be...
 

[Closed] Reccomend me the best tyres for a bit of everything.

Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I need to add about €60 to my CRC basket to get free shipping, and so I thought I'd get a pair of new tyres. What would you guys reccomend as the best all-around tyre for a bit of DH (and uphill)with a lot of XC, and with plenty of gravel, rocks, mud, dust, grass, puddles, logs to jump over - just your usual day out on the bike really.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 7:18 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

high rollers


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

The hard-compound jobbies? 2.3"-ish?


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 7:29 pm
 jonb
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Panaracer fire xc pro


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 7:30 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Kenda Nevegal 2.1" DTC (dual tread compound) folding (the size of 2.3" continental/panaracer)
Maxxis Advantage 2.1" 62a eXception folding (again quite big)
Bontrager ACX 2.2" folding (520/565g) - a tad hard though
Maxxis High Roller 2.35" (more like a 2.25") 60a folding (646/695g)

Stuff I've been most recently (for a while actually) and happy with most for riding as you describe. All handle mud well enough, big enough to take a bit of a battering and corner well enough mostly


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 7:42 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

High Roller 2.35" folding - too heavy for cross country/long days out
High Roller 2.1" 62a exception - too light-weight/narrow/lacking in centre and shoulder tread to survive rocky descents/hold a decent line downhill without being deflected. The lack of shoulder tread (compared to the 2.35) leaves the side walls vulnerable, IME.

Wish Maxxis did a 2.1 High Roller with the same tread as the 2.3 Roller

All IMO of course


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 7:54 pm
 baz
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

maxxis ignitor 2.1 iv just been looking myself for new boots looked at everything but notting come close to these.price wise £24.99 for crc if used them all last year and they do everthing and at 480/489g each they light too


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 8:10 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Some good info here. Thanks. Like to look of Maxxis Advantage.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 8:24 pm
Posts: 1
Free Member
 

Kenda Nevegal DTC 2.35's and enjoying them even though some folk call them Kenda surprise. Mine were both tubeless (ghetto) until I ragged the sidewall of the rear DH'ing at Innerleithen on the 456 Inbred.

Also High rollers worth a mention too


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 8:50 pm
Posts: 7935
Free Member
 

646g is too heavy for an xc tyre?!!

that strikes me as being pretty lightweight for the volume.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 8:54 pm
 jonk
Posts: 1126
Full Member
 

Panaracer cinder & they are on sale at crc too.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 8:56 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

646g for which tyre? Maxxis website has 2.35" folding Rollers at 695g


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 8:58 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'm using Kenda dread Treads at the moment.....so far,so good.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 9:10 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

"High Roller 2.35" folding - too heavy for cross country/long days out"
What?!
Maxxis Say they are 695g. JRA say they are 646g. On picking mine up (when fitting) they feel pretty light

"646g for which tyre? Maxxis website have 2.3" folding Rollers at 695g"
[url= http://www.justridingalong.com/news/2007/12/06/maxxis-tyres-under-1-kg/ ]Just Riding Along has them at 646g (on their we weighed these maxxis tyres type page)[/url]


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 9:14 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

"Panaracer cinder & they are on sale at crc too"
700g looks pretty good for a 2.35" (Nevegal look a like) tyre
2.35" Kenda Nevgals are a bit over 700g

All fair enough until you see a set of 2.35" Rampages. They're tiny. A 2.2" I reckon. Smaller than 2.35" High Rollers I reckon and they're already small
Still bigger than 2.1" Kenda Nevegals though, but not by much


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 9:17 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Some good info here. Thanks. Like to look of Maxxis Advantage.

Been thinking about Advantage 2.1's to replace my ripped pair of High Rollers (Grrr, both on the same Afan descent). Anyone confirm they are a proper 2.1"?

Also, can anyone comment on a Blue Groove/Nevegal front/rear combo using Stans and No tubes rims?


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 9:20 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Old Maxxis (Larsen TT, Ignitor, High Roller, Minion and so on) are small. Continental/Panaracer sort of small (not quite sure how they compare with one another)

New Maxxis (Crossmark, Advantage, Ardent and some (XC) others) are pretty big. Perhaps bigger than a proper 2.1". The 2.25" advantages are 2.5" High Roller/Minion size (but 660g). The 2.4" is ridiculous (even on the front of a nomad when I saw one. I'd love to see just how insane the 2.6" Ardent is for size


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 9:25 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Intense System 4's Excellent in all but serious sticky gloop. They are 2.25 wide so a good compromise on width too.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 1
Free Member
 

[i]Maxxis Say they are 695g. JRA say they are 646g. On picking mine up (when fitting) they feel pretty light[/i]

Got a 2.35 folding HR last week and popped it on the digital scales: came in at 697g. I'd certainly consider that light enough for XC but certainly heavier than the Bonty Mud-X I did have on.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 9:49 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Hutchinson Pirhanas, I love them. UST ones.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 9:55 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'd certainly consider that light enough for XC but certainly heavier than the Bonty Mud-X I did have on.

Yeah, about 150g each!


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 10:08 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Yes, but 2" Mud X's are tiny

I can touch the rim with one on the rear of my hardtail at 40psi on sets of steps

Compared to 2.25" folding Advantages (which are a fair bit bigger volume) they're pretty heavy though (2.35" folding high rollers that is)


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

P.S. Loving the punctuation marks and smilies as if to say WTF, rather than just a polite 'I disagree'. STW eh, don't you love it


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 10:20 pm
Posts: 6581
Free Member
 

Jones ACX 2.35


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 10:22 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Tempted to say I should stop worry over the weights and just appreciate the benefits of the extra volume - and spend less time on the net 😉


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 10:24 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

that strikes me as being pretty lightweight for the volume.

Yes, but 2" Mud X's are tiny

Basically I'm not saying the HR etc are heavy for their size just that they are heavy compared to a 2.1" tyre (e.g. Fire XC Pro's are <600g), so why spin the extra mass when 2.1" could be all that's needed for XC. Too many terrain, rider weight and riding style variables to make sweeping generalisations, of course.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 10:47 pm
Posts: 66083
Full Member
 

I like the Nevegals, I've been playing around with them, 2.1 both ends with a stick-e on the front makes a very good allround set (or a Blue Groove on the front and Nevegal on the back). They've done me fine all winter, and they'd do me for summer too I'm sure, but I've stuck on a more summery set for now. I've got a 2.35 pair as well but they're just silly for xc (though the 2.35 on the back of a hardtail makes for a nice ride on lumpy trails!)


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 11:04 pm
Posts: 316
Full Member
 

Some don't like them, but I love Conti Supersonic Mountain Kings. The 2.4s are 590g.


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 11:11 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'm using Nevegals as I use m road bike more and once a week i ride with firends on mtbs whci h can be random weathered trails.

Kenda Nevegals work good in all weather but not as good as dedicated muds or hardpack or summer dry trail dedicated tyres.

They can be draggy too, 2.1's work good in mud but a rear 2.3 will clog up in bad conditions.
I'm using DTC 2.1s.

But an all round tyre? Nevegals are really good. I think I'll get small block 8 if the weather stays dry this summer-yeah right!


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 11:24 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

advantage 2.25

nuff sed


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 11:32 pm
Posts: 15
Full Member
 

Conti vertical pro


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 11:32 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

When you say a bit of everything, what sort of bias are we talking about?


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 11:36 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Tioga Farmer Johns or Ritchey Z-max WC...


 
Posted : 29/04/2009 11:42 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I've used Panaracer Cinders and Kenda Nevegals.

Both are decent tyres, absolutely love the Nevegals for general trail centre and xc riding and I found them both consistent and sure footed. Neither's particularly light or fast rolling however, more tyres for people who enjoy blatting it on the downhills.

There's probably better tyres for muddy conditions, however, as they tend to float/squirm rather than cut through in 2.35 form.


 
Posted : 30/04/2009 12:28 am
Posts: 7935
Free Member
 

Speshneeds - I'm 14.5 stone. I'll take a 2.3 for volume for 'xc' thanks.

Mingsta - Tyres are funny and personal eh? I thought Nevegals rolled pretty well!


 
Posted : 30/04/2009 9:48 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Conti Rubber Queens, the 2.4 are huge but sticky as. Similar profile to the High roller.


 
Posted : 30/04/2009 10:43 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Tyres are funny and personal eh?

They sure are.
I tend to get on with rounder profile tyres with proggressive cornering, where more aggressive riders seem to like Highrollers and their ilk for hard cornering.

Personally I don't like 2.35 Highrollers (too draggy and slow) or Fire XC Pros (poor in even the slightest mud).

Bonty ACX 2.2 have been my faves for a good few years. Great in all conditions, the only weakness is steering in thick mud, but never really felt the need for proper mud-tyres.

Trying 2.1 ADvantages now for a change.


 
Posted : 30/04/2009 10:56 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Have you seen the new Bonty Jones 2.1 XDX tyres?
I used to swear by Nobby Nics, but the side walls are way-too thin and wear out in no time at all. Plus they can be £££.

Tim


 
Posted : 30/04/2009 11:45 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Bonty ACX 2.2 have been my faves for a good few years

Tubeless ready version as well - think I'll give them a shot, cheers


 
Posted : 30/04/2009 1:34 pm
Posts: 13
Free Member
 

There's a nice thread on mtbwales about Advantage front and Crossmark rear.

http://www.mtb-wales.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=22110&POSTNUKESID=489f5cec890097dd427d970ba8b284fa


 
Posted : 30/04/2009 1:43 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Bonty ACX
I have them for the winter riding.
Now it's dry I have the lighter lower profiled XDX & I'm going to try RRalfs.
At present very skinny 1.8 XR which are very quick around these parts (Watford) where we have no built-up berms or technical sections to really speak of. On them, I've ridden the red & black routes at Glentress (not recommended) and Dalby plus Cannock's Red routes (just fine).
If you're prepared to ride on skinny tires, it can be a revelation just how quick you can get a shift-on!
Tim


 
Posted : 01/05/2009 1:21 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

2.35 high rollers , they are good. folding front normal rear


 
Posted : 01/05/2009 1:26 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I can wholeheartedly recommend Nobby Nics, I run them 2.4 with snakeskin sidewalls and they are really good all around, being a big tyre though they do drag a little. However i do like a big tyre so have just fitted a 2.4 ralph on the back and 2.4 ron on the front, no snakeskin and no tubes either! (stans kit) which will hopefully work out as my lightweight summer solution. The weight saving with stans is a touch under 400g I just hope they are tough enough as these lightweight schwalbes are very thin at the sides


 
Posted : 10/06/2010 9:04 am
Posts: 37
Free Member
 

Maxxis Ardents? Not used them but get good reviews.


 
Posted : 10/06/2010 9:38 am