|   reasonably light trail/technical tires? | BrianL
Aug 11, 2002 9:17 AM | | I'm currently running Michelin Front S/XLS 2.1" tires on my Spec FSR XC, doing rooty, rocky trail riding and some technical riding. These tires are pretty good all round, but on the steeper, looser stuff they don't brake as well as I'd like, and I've been scared a few times by sliding out of control down some steep downhills and had to step off, while my friend's "playbike" with 24" DH tires seems a lot easier to control in the same places. I know bike size and geometry is a factor, but I'm thinking better traction will help some anyway.
Are there some tires (maybe slightly wider than 2.1") with good enough braking/side traction to handle technical riding without being too porky for trail riding? |
| Specialized Enduro Pro 2.2 weighed 532 and 543 nm | tankhead10
Aug 11, 2002 10:39 AM | | |
| Same size as the Front/XL... | shiggy©®
Aug 11, 2002 2:13 PM | | ...The Enduro's tread might give you better braking. |
| Same size as the Front/XL??? | mtc
Aug 13, 2002 7:21 AM | | The 2.2 SPecialized are massive. After a rough section you can see where the brake accordian boot hit the tire. I haven't seen any 2.1s near that big, and I've seen a couple "2.3" that are smaller. |
| Look at my tire spec chart | shiggy
Aug 13, 2002 8:18 AM | | http://www.themudzone.com/tire
All actual measurements.
* Michelin Front S 2.1 - Casing width: 51mm, Tread width: 53, Casing height: 48
* Spec. Enduro Pro 2.20 - Casing width: 50.4mm, Tread width: 50.8, Casing height: 48.7
* Conti Vertical Pro 2.3 - Casing width: 50.6mm, Tread width: 55.6, Casing height: 47.9
Measured on the same rim (Mavic 261) at the same pressure (40psi.)
Three "different" size tires with the same size casing. |
| Another tire to confuse the "size" issue | shiggy
Aug 13, 2002 3:12 PM | | Python Air Light 2.0 - Casing width: 50mm, Tread width: 48mm, Casing height: 47mm
So here are four tires - called 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 (about a 7mm range) - with a 1mm range in casing width and less than 2mm in height! and none of them are actualy as wide as claimed.
Note that there is a 7.6mm range in tread width.
So you never know until you measure! |
| Here I'll help the confusion.... | DeeEight
Aug 13, 2002 11:24 PM | | Ritchey Z-Max WCW 2.35 : 52.9mm casing, 58.4mm tread (well, 2.29 is still pretty close to reality)
Joe Murray Maximum 2.2 Kevlar : 50.3mm casing, 56.1 tread (wow, its REALLY a 2.20!!!)
WTB MotoRaptor 2.4 : 54mm casing, 59mm tread (claimed is 55/60, which would be 2.36 at the most)
Panaracer Magic Smoke Classic 2.1 : 45.9mm casing, 49.4 tread
Panaracer TrailBlaster 2.1 : 47.4mm casing, 50.5mm tread
See a major part of the problem is MOST tire makers rely on the compressed tread width measured
at the ground with the rider on the bike to base their claimed widths off of. But the Joe Murray
tire and Ritchey are two designs from a decade ago before this creative math of tire manufacturers
became the industry norm. |
| For me, casing size is the "real" size of the tire | shiggy
Aug 14, 2002 10:33 AM | | The tread width is important only for frame clearance.
The casing size determines the ride qualities.
Conti calls the Twister a 1.9 and the Explorer a 2.1 even though they have the same casing size. The ride and floation/cush of the two are going to be about the same but the Twister has more frame clearance.
The "compressed tread width measured at the ground with the rider on the bike" just makes no sense at all. Too many variables (tire pressure, rider weight, weight distribution, rim width, etc.) to be useful. I also have never been able to find any info from a tire company that this is the way they measure their tires. |
| mythos xc | bogart
Aug 11, 2002 11:28 AM | | i've seen these as low as $15 mailorder. ok light at 560 for a real 2.1 size. great traction in the loose, should work good for you |
| His Michelins are bigger and about the same weight (nm) | shiggy©®
Aug 11, 2002 2:10 PM | | |
| Most any DH tire will be better than any XC tire... | shiggy©®
Aug 11, 2002 2:43 PM | | ...in that situation. More aggressive tread, softer rubber and lower pressure all add up to better braking.
I would try lower pressure in your current tires. I run the Front S/XLS quite often, using 30-32psi in the front and 32-35 in the rear (I weigh 170.)
Other tires you might try are:
* WTB Motoraptor Race in 2.4 or 2.24. I use the 2.4 on the front at about 28psi.
* IRC Trailbear 2.25, a lighter weight version of the old Missile DH tire.
* Michelin Hot 2.1
* Tioga Factory XC 1.95 Might work better, too. They are as wide as most 2.1 tires and have a very aggressive tread.
* Specialized Enduro Pro 2.20 is as big as the Michelins you are now using. You may find that the tread pattern has better braking traction. I have used this tire on both ends with good results at lower pressures (~30psi front and 32 rear.)
Of course you can try a "smaller" DH tire like the Tioga Factory DH 2.1 kevlar bead or IRC Kujo 2.25 |
| I am interested... | pedalinbob
Aug 12, 2002 6:09 AM | | in the trail bear--well, curious anyway.
so far i am happy with the michelin front/xls as my "severe condition" tire, especially since they roll so fast, and do so well in a wide variety of conditions. i admit that i dont like the feel of the flexy knobs on hardpack--yet they still havent thrown me!
i am really interested in intense's new line of tires: system 1,2,3 and CC 2.25. the rubber compounds are supposed to make them quite grippy (there is a "C3" which is around 65 durometer and the "SR" which is their "sticky rubber"--around 50 durometer)
anyone try these yet?
later,
Bob |
| What pressure do you use in the Michelins? | shiggy
Aug 12, 2002 7:37 AM | | I have never felt the knob flex on hardpack (I have felt it with other tires.) I think it is a non-issue at lower tire pressures (30-35psi) and the lower pressures give better overall performance.
I actually have not ridden the Trailbear. I still have a perfect set of Missiles. |
| 30 front, 32 rear... | pedalinbob
Aug 12, 2002 9:09 AM | | dont get me wrong, they still perform very well...but i am used to the pythons, so i can feel some squirming on dry/dusty hardpack.
it isnt severe, but noticable.
they are definitely better at low pressures.
take care,
Bob |
| I've been running 35/40psi... | BrianL
Aug 12, 2002 1:57 PM | | These are the tube type S/XLS, you don't have problems with pinch flats?
I only weigh 150, so I'll try 30/32psi in the Michelins and see how they work.
I'll check out some of the tires you suggested.
thanks for all the help. |
| Normal tube type tires | shiggy
Aug 12, 2002 4:11 PM | | I have never [knock on wood] flatted with the Front S or XL S. |
| Tradeoff? | ri© Wi©to®
Aug 12, 2002 2:39 AM | | I ran into the same problem several times. My Michelin Front S / XLS combo was perfect on anything but fast, steep descents on gravel. In that terrain Conti Explorer do a great job, but they aren't tops on anything wet, particularly rocks.
One tire that MAY be better is Hutchinson's Scorpion 2.0". I've raced against/with people using them and they seemed to do a very good job both on slippery granite and wide open gravel descents. This was the UST version, but the Air Light model may be just as good, especially if you run it with Stan's/Eclipse and at slightly lower pressures...
Another option may be Schwalbe Big Jim / King Jim tires (2.2"-2.35"), although I don't really like the knob pattern for gravel or for grip on wet rocks and roots. |
| The Scorpion Air-Light IS an excellent tire for loose and... | AZ-X
Aug 12, 2002 2:59 PM | | slippery surfaces. I've been using one on the front with a Python on the back even in the rain here and it's been great. |
| The Scorpion Air-Light IS an excellent tire for loose and... | countryMike
Aug 12, 2002 9:14 PM | | I have been running a Scorpion air-light front/XLS rear combo for about a month now and really like it. They replaced Mythos fr and rr, and seem to grip better in all conditions. I really like the extra width of the Scorpion which is a true 2.2 wide (on a 22mm rim), despite being called a 2.0. |
| |
