|   WTB Weirwolf 2.1 vs 2.5 | Dean_Taylor
Feb 26, 2003 6:44 AM | | I'm putting a Weirwolf 2.5 on the front and was thinking of a 2.1 on the rear as:
- it's quite a bit lighter.
- probably won't need such a big tyre on the rear.
Does the 2.1 work well? What would be a good alternative (600gm or less ideally) all round use - it gets pretty muddy over here in the UK.
I really want a Motoraptor 2.24 race, but they aren't available here until the summer.
Will be going on a Turner 5-Spot when I get it :^) |
| re: WTB Weirwolf 2.1 vs 2.5 | Dave in Ak
Feb 26, 2003 7:31 AM | | I have a 2.1 weirwolf but have not ridden it yet. Mine weighed 629 gms. I also have a 2.24 motoraptor which I have ridden and do like. I also intend to pair the two weirwolf tires together. |
| Shiggy's Site Will Help U Somewhat.... | Voelkel
Feb 26, 2003 7:50 AM | | http://www.themudzone.com/tire/tire_site_files/specs/index.html |
| Weirwolf and Conti is what i run for mud... | EricTheRed
Feb 26, 2003 7:55 AM | | 2.5 weirwolf up front and a 2.3 Conti survival(i think. the one w/ the large "paddles" and lots of of room between them for good mud shedding). The contis are decently light, haven't weighed them though.
-e |
| I love the Weirwolf but.. | Locoman
Feb 26, 2003 8:52 AM | | I love the Weirwolf, but in the mud it's not that great (for me). The nobs are pretty close and trap mud. I'll continue to use it (in the mud..whatever) because it's fairly new and I can't justify new tires. But given the choice I'd have two Conti's right now.
The Wolf seems like it would be excellent in the late summer when things dry out. |
| Rolling resistance conparison between the | Jrm
Feb 26, 2003 9:31 AM | | 2.1 Panaracer XC and the 2.3 vertical pro used as a rear tire? i know its a long shot but what the hell i feel "lucky" for some reason. |
| The Vert Pro 2.3.... | knobbydad®
Feb 26, 2003 10:07 AM | | rolls as easily as a Panaracer XC Pro in my opinion. It is on the small side of a 2.3. Mine measures about 2.2 and that is mounted on a wide Mavic D521 rim. The Survival Pro 2.3 on the other hand is not at all fast rolling,as a matter of fact it is probably one of the slowest tires I have ever used, but it does excel in the mud and loose conditions. I'll put mine back on the rear once all of the snow disappears in NH and turns to muddy goo. |
| Some #'s: | Tscheezy
Feb 26, 2003 1:40 PM | | Rolling resistance on all tires was measured with 2.5 bar / 36 psi pressure:
"ENDURO" Tires:
Continental Explorer Pro Tection: 2.1" - 517g - 29.5 watts
Continental Vertical Pro Tection: 2.3" - 624g - 29.4 watts
Continental Survival Pro Tection: 2.3" - 686g - 32.6 watts
Geax Blade 200. 2.0" - 573g - 34.1 watts
Geax Sturdy: 2.25" - 860g - 30.4 watts
Hutchinson Mosquito Air: 2.3" - 597g - 35.5 watts
IRC Serac XC: 2.1" - 574g - 26.8 watts
Maxxis Harddrive 2.1: 2.1" - 537g - 34.3 watts
WTB Mutano Raptor: 2.24" - 778g - 43.5 watts
Maxxis Ignitor / Dynomite: 2.3"/2.35" - 693g/675g - 37.6/36.9 watts
Michelin Wildgripper FrontS / XL S: 2.1" - 554g - 25.5/24.5 watts
Michelin Wildgripper Hot S: 2.1" - 681g - 36.7 watts
Specialized Roll X: 2.0" - 554g - 43.5 watts
Specialized Enduro Pro: 2.2" - 546g - 31.8 watts
Nokian NBX 2.1: 2.1" - 595g - 28.3 watts
Ritchey Z-Max Millenium: 2.35" - 691g - 26.2 watts
Schwalbe Little Albert Light FO / ORC: 2.1" - 504g - 38.2/30.6 watts
Schwalbe Fat Albert Light: 2.35" - 680g - 31.9 watts
Dunno how the Fires shake out. Some surprising info there though. I mean look at the Spec. Roll X tires! Seem to have as much to do with casing size as tread design.
tscheezy |
| Some very surprising results | shiggy
Feb 26, 2003 2:05 PM | | The Michelin Front S and XL S have both agressive treads and large casings yet are the easiest rolling of this group and "faster" than many semi-slicks (I have seen the full results before). |
| the Serac is a fast tire as well | Duckman
Feb 26, 2003 7:21 PM | | and atill manages to be a relatively aggressive tread patern. Still doesn't roll as fast my Comp S lites tho, but i use that wheelset for wetter rides, as the Serac does a fair job in the mud. The Lites wear a alot slower compared to the Serac tho. The Fires don't roll as well as either tire. I like the fires tho. Very confidence inspiring tire with traction out the wazoo. That and the relatively low volumn (for the weight) case size are its main flaws. Mud performance is bad here in our red clay..especially going slow, but it doesn't claim to be a mud tire. |
| Watts in terms of output? | Jrm
Feb 27, 2003 9:14 AM | | So the higher the watt the lower the resistance and the lower the watts the higher the resistance?
A engineer i am not... |
| Other way round | shiggy
Feb 27, 2003 9:39 AM | | They are showing the watts required to keep the tire rolling.
Less watts = lower rolling resistance |
| Weirwolf not a good mud tire | Tscheezy
Feb 26, 2003 9:45 AM | | I have used the 2.5's for a while during our wet winter and they pretty much stink as a wet conditions tire. They just clog and turn into slicks. I also ran Conti Survival 2.3s for over a year and those are great rear mud tires. They are fairly light too and very durable in my experience. I am saving my WTBs for a trip to Utah next winter. Until then they are going to hang on the wall. Nokian also makes very good mud tires.
Turners accept huge tires, so don't be afraid to run whatever you want in the rear. My XCE accepts a 2.5 in back with no problems. I, personally, would much rather run a big tire in back for pinch flat protection. I don't really understand the big front/small back school of thought. A narrower tire helps to dig down through the mud to find terra firma for traction, and it might offer a tiny bit lower rolling resistance, but it gets drilled into obstacles 10x as hard as the front tire and accounts for all my pinch flats. I run about 30psi in front and about 40-45psi in back with Nokian Dual 2.3s and still flat in back pretty often. I tend to descend a little faster than I should, but the Turners just beg for it. The problem is the rock here is nothing but scary sharp slate and it just shreds/knifes tires. I don't know what you ride now, but if you are around any rocky trails, you had better put some serious tires on the 5-Spot because you will be hauling bootie downhill on that bike like you never thought possible. You made a fantastic choice in bikes, BTW.
tscheezy |
| Weirwolf not a good mud tire | Dean_Taylor
Feb 26, 2003 2:42 PM | | Thanks all. I think I've decided to put a Moto 2.4 on the rear - it was what the XCE that I test rode had and it felt good - to hell with the weight. I might use the 'Eclipse' tubeless system (easier to set up euro-version of Stan's) which will make the extra weight redundant.
I'm not overly worried about the mud issue as I have both a Conti Survival 2.3 and Vertical 2.3 I can throw on if necessary - the Survival is a great gloop tyre.
Unfortunately it looks like I'll be waiting until mid-late April for the 5-Spot, I'm sure it'll be worth it though :^)
Thanks Tscheezy in particular for helping me choose the Turner (I've been monitoring the MTBR boards for the last year or so). Once I demo'd the bike I was sold.
Cheers. |
| Echo Tscheezy for the most part | wg
Feb 26, 2003 4:20 PM | | I just put the 2.5 up front with the Mutano 2.4 in back. They didn't do too well in mud but grip very nicely in the techy stuff.
We'll see how they really do at the AZSF in a couple of weeks.
wg |
| The DNA rubber actually does quite well on wet rock | Tscheezy
Feb 26, 2003 10:07 PM | | more so than the rubber my Nokians have. I notice my Nokian Duals slip more on wet, smooth rock than the WTB DNA rubber did. If WTB could make a decent mud tread, they are already there in the rubber department. I actually commute on racing raptors and think they are a great around-town tire. Been running them for a year and a half with almost no tread wear. Nice rubber.
tscheezy |
| |
