Maxxis High Rollers
“Them buggers go like **** off a shovel”
Which high rollers are these then? 2.1″ High Roller XCs? or 2.35″/2.5″ High Roller FR/DH (the tread is different, XC ones have lower side lugs, and less middle lugs – though still very grippy)
Oh, and what compound are they? 70a? 62a? 60a? 42a?
Just curious as my 2.5″ single ply (880g) 60As are the slowest tyres I’ve ridden. Slill find them slow at 40psi. Horrendously grippy though. My only tyre that doesn’t lock up at all on flights of stairs. Bought for an alps trip that ended up raining all week, and they were still really good. Can’t complain reallyPosted 9 years ago
Depends on the size, I ran 2.4 Advantage FR’s and they were utter utter shite (OK at trail centers, but then again what isn’t) and broke away badly when leaning over.
HR are a million miles better for most riding. However if you only ride trail centers you mighten need their grip so you could find them draggyPosted 9 years ago
Sounds like HR’s would be spot on then, just avoid the 70a ones like the plague.
I am running a 60a on the back and the 42a on the front and accept that I am going to be slow on the uphills. When you get to the top you can pretty much pick anyline you want as they stick to the ground like shit to a blanket.Posted 9 years agotheotherjonvSubscriber
I love mine. Another tip – if it gets a bit loose run the rear the wrong way round – then you get the flat edges rather than the ramped edges biting into the muck. A bit more draggy of course, but you can get use out of them in wetter conditions too rather than going straight to a mud tyre.Posted 9 years agojamesMember
2.5″ HR is pretty much the same volume to a 2.25″ Advantage, similar to a 2.3″ Specialized Enduro, Kenda Nevegal 2.35″ … Bigger than 2.4″ Mountain Kings. I’ve not ridden/compared much else that big.Posted 9 years ago
I agree the 2.35″ HR is tiny. Not a lot more volume than the already small 2.1″ HR XCtheotherjonvSubscriber
what does the size of a tyre refer to – bead to bead or something?
In which case i can see a wider ‘lower’ profile as being different to a narrower high profile for the same size. But why is there seemingly such a diversion. I’ve had very skinny Panaracer Trailrakers at 2.1 and mahhoosive Spesh’s at 2.0?Posted 9 years ago
It’s just because the inch sizings are only approximate and manufacturers make them up.
If you want to know how big a tyre really is, have a look for the size markings on the side wall (eg. 54-559). These are mm size and the 559 refers to the rim diameter, the other number is the width of the tyre carcass.Posted 9 years agosolamandaMember
Anyone use High Rollers with Stans No Tubes or similar? Do you need to use the LUST version or will the lighter XC ones work ok?
I’ve used the standard single ply highrollers with stans with no issues. I also use the non-ust dual plys as tubeless using ghetto and UST rims.Posted 9 years agothisisnotaspoonMember
are the 2.35’s realy that small? I’m comparing against 2.1 panaracer fires, 2.3 conti gravity’s, 2.1 high rollers (which are tiny), and spesh 2.2’s. The HR’s are huge in comparison to th at lot!
2.35 SPC kevlar HR up front
2.4 holly roller out back in the dry, same as front in the mixed
2.1 swampthings in the wet.Posted 8 years ago
The topic ‘Maxxis High Rollers’ is closed to new replies.