|   Panaracer Fire XC Pro tires for 14.95 at supergo.com | Helper
Jun 17, 2002 4:28 AM | | Just throwing it out there since 14.95 is a decent price. it a couple bucks more if you want the red sidewalls. So there ya go, decent tire for cheap. |
| They're the 60 tpi version - don't waste your money ... | Philber
Jun 17, 2002 5:47 AM | | Spend the $24 on the 127 tpi version - you'll be much happier. The 60 tpi version is what Panaracer sells to bike manufacturers who then use them on factory bikes to make them look like they have great tires. It's consumer fraud, bait and switch, misleading advertising, call it what you want, but both versions look identical - one is awesome (the 127 version) and the other (60 tpi) is crap. |
| Yep, Universal has the 127tpi for $23..... | Dirt Pilot
Jun 17, 2002 6:28 AM | | ...I just replaced the 60tpi OEM issue with the 127tpi and they're MUCH better, well worth the extra 9 bucks. |
| Ditto, and.... | makalu
Jun 17, 2002 7:46 AM | | The rep from Panaracer even is quoted as saying "do not buy the OEM 60 TPI tires".
Hold out for a new sale. I got the true 127 TPI red walled kevlar beaded Fire XC Pro's from Nashbar for $19.99 each.
These tires are great too |
| Fire XC users. Question for you.... | RED5
Jun 17, 2002 9:04 AM | | what kind of bike are you using these tires on and what type of riding do you typically do on them? Just taking a quick poll for some of the guys I ride with who have to be convinced that these tires are indeed great. They just want to hear a little positive feedback from other actual Fire XC users. Thanks for the help guys. |
| I use them.. | WarrGuru
Jun 17, 2002 9:22 AM | | I use them for XC rides. I ride pretty aggressively, and I just love these tires. They hook up great. I ride a Fuel 98. These tires are great for most riding except for mud. I don't race on the Panaracer Pros because I want a lower rolling resistance, but for everyting else, they rock! |
| Fire XC user. Answer for you.... | bungyfish
Jun 17, 2002 9:23 AM | | I run the Fire XC on the rear of my Trek 8900 and it works well. I ride XC, in N Texas, so mostly dry hardpack. It works well except in mud, where it becomes close to a slick. Could be the Texas mud don't know. I was running them front and rear and didn't like the way the Fire handled in the front(but I am picky). Hope this helped a little. I have the 127's, no expierience on the 60. Good Luck. |
| UST for me | woodyak
Jun 17, 2002 1:18 PM | | I'm using the 2.1 UST's and they're really nice. I'm running them on a new 02 Loco-Moto in Rocky/Rooty/Muddy New England. They hook up real well in the mud and grime. They're not as sticky on the slickrock as others though. I've only been riding them for a week so it's a bit early to give them a full review but so far I am very pleased with their performance. I ride the 2.1's at 30 psi.
I came from Python Airlights which were really good too. The problem I had with them was with the sidewalls getting shredded. Too flimsy. The tread was fast and grippy. They didn't take to leafy/wet/muddy stuff too well. |
| I use em for XC and Longer trail rides... | Squash
Jun 17, 2002 1:22 PM | | I like to ride technical XC with some moderate to long distance trail rides tossed in. Anything from hard pack to rocky, rooty, semi-sandy, loose dirt, and gravel. The tires work well in nearly all conditions but sticky gumbo or clay type mud. I've never had a pinch flat while using them, and love the way the tires perform both front and rear. They're a good all around multi-condition tire. They roll reasonably fast, and are of a reasonable weight for a full knob tire and offer the added advantage of being usable both front and rear. This is a deffinate advantage it you do happen to toast one on a ride on a trip or vacation. Last year I ripped the side wall of the rear tire on an unseen sharp rock. My fault entirely. But the trip was saved even though the LBS I found (the only one within 100 miles) only had 1 Fire XC in stock. Since they are not fron/rear specific, I just bought the one they had and mounted it in the proper direction. The Fire XC is a great all around XC Tire. They even work for racing in the right conditions.
Good Dirt |
| Can you tell me the diff between the tires??? | mikel
Jun 17, 2002 9:00 AM | | As you can tell i am still a newbie. What is the difference between the two tires? is it the air pressure, tubeless or? I am needing some new tires and saw this post and was thinking about those tires from supergo but now am skeptical.
Mike |
| I'll share as much as I can... | RED5
Jun 17, 2002 9:13 AM | | the differences are;
60 TPI is heavier, by about a 100 grams each tire which equals to just under a half a pound of extra rolling resistance if you use them front & back.
60 TPI thicker casing = harsher ride than the 127 TPI
Durability- the 127 lasts longer due to better overall rubber compound.
Price- in this case it's actually true that higher price means higher quality.
Better graphics on the 127 TPI, not that this is important.
Thats about all I can think of hope this helps. |
| Can you tell me the diff between the tires??? | Yeah
Jun 17, 2002 9:16 AM | | Yeah, what exactly is the difference?
I mean, I dont know many off road riding people who put their pressure above 50 psi that arent fatasses. What is the downside to the 60's if they are only going to be filled to 45 anyways? Are there problems with them other than the pressure they can hold?
thanks! |
| It might be easier.... | WarrGuru
Jun 17, 2002 9:28 AM | | It might be easier to put it this way. The only thing that the 127 TPI and the 60 TPI versions have in common are the tread patterns. Everyting else is different.
The 60 TPI is basically a different tire.
The 127 TPI uses a better rubber compound. A better design that helps avoid pinch flats. Better traction.
I think that the only advantage, besides price, of the 60 TPI might be that they wear longer. The 60TPI uses a harder compound that sucks for grip, but will wear well. |
| re: Panaracer Fire XC Pro tires for 14.95 at supergo.com | snowman3
Jun 17, 2002 9:49 AM | | I'm a newbie, but I thought TPI = threads per inch. I had assumed that 127 threads per inch would be heavier since it has more threads. I thought that was one of the choices... less TPI and less durability for less weight.
However, if they change other material then all bets are off. Guess I'll have to pay more attention when choosing betw the 60 tpi and 127 tpi versions. |
| tpi | rufus
Jun 17, 2002 9:57 AM | | there are more threads/inch, but the threads are finer, not as thick, which is how they get more of them per inch. these finer threads can weave into a lighter, more supple tire casing, which will give a smoother ride on pavement, and deflect and roll more easily and smoother over trail obstacles. being that there are more threads/inch, they are closer together, which also strengthens the casing, helping to prevent flats. |
| re: Panaracer Fire XC Pro tires for 14.95 at supergo.com | Flash
Jun 17, 2002 10:02 AM | | I ride on Panaracer Fire XC's as well...how do I tell which ones I own? Mine have large white writing on the side that say "Panaracer Fire XC..." etc etc...I think the "other" version does not have that. How do I tell which version I have? |
| Flash you are correct.. | RED5
Jun 17, 2002 10:25 AM | | the 127 TPI version has the large white lettering. The 60 has the colorful Fire logo. |
| Flash you are correct.. | Flash
Jun 17, 2002 11:24 AM | | Thanks Red! I paid too much for them to begin with...was just trying to make sure I wasn't really getting screwed by buying the 60 tpi ones.... |
| Telling the difference plus other answers | makalu
Jun 17, 2002 11:02 AM | | As mentioned, the 127 TPI tire has white lettering on the side, while the 60 TPI OEM version has a heat patch thats colored.
Also, on the tire, is written made in Taiwan on the OEM tire, and made in Japan on the 127 TPI tire.
Also, to correct, TPI is threads per inch. Someone above thought it was referring to PSI (pounds per inch).
I run the Fire XC Pro on both front and rear of my 2002 Giant Rainier. I ride in NJ, so we have everything from rocks, to roots, to mud, to clay, to hardpack, to sand to...... you get the idea hahha. |
| re: Panaracer Fire XC Pro tires for 14.95 at supergo.com | TireHead
Jun 17, 2002 10:22 AM | | Panaracer Fire Pros suck. In other words - no price is a bargain.
Avoid at all costs........ |
| OK I'll bite..... what's your reasoning?? nm. | RED5
Jun 17, 2002 10:30 AM | | nm. |
| OK I'll bite.....like Panaracer Fire Pros bite! | TireHead
Jun 17, 2002 11:39 AM | | WE ALL have opinions and choose to use products and avoid others. what works fer one, may not fer another.
I AVOID Fire Pros after poor performance and what I considered a "short life span" based on the pair I had last year. Letting others know of that poor experience may not please all, but they were the most disappointing set of tires I have used in the past 12 years. Avoid at any price level....
Tire(d) |
| Cool thanks. I am sorry.... | RED5
Jun 17, 2002 12:17 PM | | that you had a bad experience with them. I just think that if your going to slam a product, at least give respect to the product your slamming to give reasons. Again thank you for your reply. If you don't mind my asking, what tires do you run now? |
| Cool thanks. I am sorry.... | TireHead
Jun 18, 2002 12:21 AM | | that you had a bad experience with them. I just think that if your going to slam a product, at least give respect to the product your slamming to give reasons. Again thank you for your reply. If you don't mind my asking, what tires do you run now?
No problemo. I run several sets of tires - all depends on the party occasion.
Racing XC:
Michelin Wildgripper Jet S or Michelin Wildgripper Comp Lights - Period
Daily Training (when not racing that week) - Michelin Wildgripper Hot S for the steep up and down mountain climbs (2X - 3X per week). They carve turns like no other on those steep mountain descents and hook up on the rocks and mountainside terrain enough to satisfy my needs for those training rides. Yeah, they are a big ugly tire, but I care more about the training ride and what gets me through the ride.
Bontrager all condition Jones for normal XC trails and firetrail endurance rides (2X - 3X per week). Other all condition tires preceded this pair (including the Fire Pros) and I'm not partial to them, but they are hanging in there in terms of wear and tear compared to others I have owned in the past. Already passed the 6 month point and wear and tear is minimal.
And - when training on specific race courses the week of the actual race where I will be using the Michelin Comp S Light, I train with the Ritchey ZED WCS on the bike because I want to save my lighter/faster (and green) Comp S's for the race. They ride about the same and give me the feel I need to prepare for race day. Not a bad all arounder either, but more pricey than the Fire Pro category. Longevity is not known yet as this tire is only run about 2 days per week during actual race weeks that I participate in - so I cannot recommend them as an all rounder until I log more miles on them over the next year.
The Panaracer Fire XC Pros purchased last year were for the daily training rides on the same trails I have always ridden on and they did not hold up in longevity at all (barely made it 3 months). All other tires I own are still in operation and have outlasted the pair of Fire Pros on the same exact trails which wore out far too quickly for the money - IMO. No need to mention anything about mud because Panaracer and other tire makers also have "mud" models available. I'm talkin' about an all around training tire that needs to last more than 3 months. I won't mention that I am a big guy, because the other tires I ride and have owned for years did not wear out in such a short time frame with my weight.
That's my beef and I will stick with the "AVOID" for the Panaracer Fire Pros based on my experience with the product. I've got tires from 1990 that are still in good shape with tons of miles logged on them. Why did my Panaracers bite the dust in one quarter of a year? Was it bad luck for me with the pair I bought, or is the tire not as good as others I use?
Tire(d)Head |
| Cool thanks. I am sorry.... | RED5
Jun 18, 2002 6:39 AM | | "Why did my Panaracers bite the dust in one quarter of a year? Was it bad luck for me with the pair I bought, or is the tire not as good as others I use?"
I would be hard pressed to answer that. I would hesitate to say you got a bad batch, because that seems to be the general excuse for any tire that goes bad, not saying it doesn't happen. I have used Fire's for 5 years now and most of mine last me about 1 1/2 - 2 years and I ride about 3-4 times a week about 10 hours total. Alot of the durability could also depend on the terrain you ride, I live in So.Cal and ride mostly hard pack with some loose rocky sections, but not all that rough for tires really. Also tire pressure can play a role as well, but I won't bore you with more of this and that. The point is you didn't like them and you have your reasons. I just wanted to know why and you answered that and I thank you. Good riding. |
| While I don't agree 100% | Yeti_Rider
Jun 17, 2002 5:17 PM | | I do support some of what you're saying. I rode the XC (yes, the 127 TPI version) for a while beccause I'm a cheap bastard and they were on sale. In San Diego, we have lots of rocky trails mixed in among the hardpack. While the tire did in fact hook up wonderfully, I was disappointed in that I felt the tire wore down pretty quickly. I used to run Michelin tires (also becuase I'm a cheap bastard and they were on sale) and I was quite pleased with the durability of hte tread on these tires. I didn't think the XC-Pro's lasted nearly as long. Furthermore, the side lugs on the XC's get all cut up to the point that they rip off on the rocks. I had to trash one tire with about 30% usefull tread left becasue a side lug got ripped off and there was about a 1/4" square of thread showing.
In less rocky terrain this might not be an issue (although the overall tread wear will be) and I did like the way the tire hooked up but I don't think it lasted as long as other tires I've used and have been happy with.
Michael |
| While I don't agree 100% | TireHead
Jun 18, 2002 12:25 AM | | "I didn't think the XC-Pro's lasted nearly as long. Furthermore, the side lugs on the XC's get all cut up to the point that they rip off on the rocks. I had to trash one tire with about 30% usefull tread left becasue a side lug got ripped off and there was about a 1/4" square of thread showing."
BINGO!
"In less rocky terrain this might not be an issue (although the overall tread wear will be) and I did like the way the tire hooked up but I don't think it lasted as long as other tires I've used and have been happy with."
DING! DING!
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who had "issues" with the Fire Pros.
Tire(d)Head |
| have you used them? if so, where did you use them and... | gonzostrike
Jun 17, 2002 10:34 AM | | ...at what PSI?
I weigh 160 and run the 127 tpi Fire XC Pro 2.1 tires on my hardtail. I run 35-40 psi and find that they are the best all-around tire I ever have used. I normally ride in the rocky, rooty, rutty, duffy trails of the Northern Rockies (Missoula MT), and have ridden them on the rich, soft, loamy soil in Fernie BC, where they performed extremely well.
When I ran them at 45psi or higher, they were very skiddy/slidey and didn't hook up very well.
I think their optimal performance depends on finding the proper psi to run in them. But then again, that is true about most tires. |
| well, thats wrong.... | makalu
Jun 17, 2002 11:03 AM | | The tire you mentioned is the crappy OEM version that we are telling everyone to avoid.
It basically has nothing in common with the real Fire XC Pro tire. |
| different opinion | Que?
Jun 17, 2002 2:10 PM | | I've used both the 60 and 127 tpi versions. To be quite honest, I think the 60 tpi version works just fine. Yeah, it's a bit heavier, but it's still not all bad. Overall, I've found its performance to be on par with its more expensive counterpart.
Note: I am, however, only using the 127 right now. The 60 TPI version is sittin' in my tire stash.
Just my take,
-Que? |
| |
