|   Panaracer Trailblaster vs Fire XC Pro...anyone ridden both. | KMan
Nov 6, 2001 11:18 AM | | Questioning the difference in performance in the REAR tire (I'm running the Conti Explorer Pro in the front)
Trailblaster 1.95 @ 500 grams
Fire XC pro 1.80 @ 500 grams
Looking for a light weight medium condition rear tire and am trying to determine what conditions each tire is better suited for. Any one tried both and can comment? By mid conditions I mean the trail will have some soft/slick/wet areas and dryer trails as well, so looking for a tire that has some decent traction w/ low rolling resistance.
These are the tires I am using
Dry Hardpack: Conti Explorer Pro 2.0 (front) 550 grams
Conti Twister Pro 1.95 (rear) 450 grams
Medium/softer: Conti Explorer Pro 2.0 (front) 550 grams
???? (rear)
Mud: IRC Mud Mad 1.95 (front) 635 grams
Panaracer Mud Pro 1.80 (rear)450 grams
Thanks for any feedback
KMan |
| re: Panaracer Trailblaster vs Fire XC Pro...anyone ridden both. | dreampath
Nov 6, 2001 3:23 PM | | Hi, Kman. Just to followup on my reply to this question on another forum, I did switch from the 1.8 Fire XC Pro (rear) to the 1.95 Trailblaster and couldn't be happier. Simply because the beefier center knobs translate to more traction. The side knobs are probably about the same size on both. For reference, I ride mostly medium to hardpack. Rolling resistance feels about the same, or at least wasn't compromised enough to make me notice. |
| re: Panaracer Trailblaster vs Fire XC Pro...anyone ridden both. | marco righetti
Nov 6, 2001 3:36 PM | | hi,
i've had both and enjoyed both but did you know that the trailblaster 1.8 weighs 400 grms?
i tend to feel that the trailblaster 1.9 knobs are not pointy/grippy enough but the 1.8 version knobs are smaller and therefore pointier which gives more grip in any condition.
i will be using them throughout the winter even though i have the 1.8 mud pros and i stay in scotland UK. |
| Re: 1.8 vs. larger Trailblaster | dreampath
Nov 6, 2001 5:50 PM | | Yes, I tried the 1.8. I suppose it depends on the conditions on whether or not the pointier, smaller knobs work better than the larger knobs. In my case, the 1.8 made the ride a lot more speedy (than say the 1.8 500-gram Fire XC), but compromised traction so much I didn't want to continue using it. In that regard, I've been much happier with the 1.95 and 2.1 Trailblaster. |
| How do you like the mud Pros? | KMan
Nov 6, 2001 6:31 PM | | I was gonna get one for the rear for the winter riding/spring racing season. A few races early in the spring are usually MUD fests and I was going to try a mud specific set up this year. IRC mud mad for a front
KMan |
| I haven't tried them. | dreampath
Nov 6, 2001 9:46 PM | | I don't usually have deal with too much mud out here in sunny coastal California. |
| How do you like the mud Pros? | marco righetti
Nov 7, 2001 2:49 PM | | hi kman,
if your not concerned about speed but staying upright and slicing through the mud then it doesn't get any better than the 1.8 mud pros its just that i went to my first race this year and there was plenty of mud around and i pre-rode the course on trailblaster 1.8's and found them to be sketchy at high speeds but good at slow-normal speeds so i changed to the mud pros before the start of the race and i found that i was really slow with them so i wished that i had just stuck to the trailblasters. |
| |
