Tire Review Thread

[el_d00der1n0]

Everybody obviously loves the Nevegals, but any love for the Panny Fire XC's?

How would the two compare?

[guero]

Originally Posted by Waldo

Pardon my ignorance - not the first or last time - but what's the big plus to Stan's, UST, etc? It seems like every time I read or hear something about these systems it involves high-pressure-bead-setting, goop-squirting, tire-burping, messes. I thought there was supposed to be a performance advantage with reduced weight, but if you have to squirt more goop in every couple months, doesn't it add up to the weight of a tube pretty quickly? And don't most people end up carrying a tube anyway for emergencies? And isn't it all kinda pricey, with more expensive tires plus all that goop & stuff?

I don't get many flats. I carry a spare tube or two. I get normal tires at good sale prices. It all seems so simple: What am I doing wrong?

there really isnt any weight savings when it comes to Stan'itizing your wheels. i weighed my coiler before Stan'itizing and after and the weight difference was nearly nil. many times it can be a big pain in the butt to get your tires to sit and seal correctly, some brands work better than others (in my experience, maxxis worked like a charm, while kenda tires were a p.i.t.a). different manufacturers use slightly different processes creating variances in the inner surface of the tire...making them more or less pourous depending on the maker. burps do happen, sealant does dry up, adding more sealant isn't that difficult once you've done it a couple times. one of the differences you can notice is the lack of rolling resistance you get from a tube, albeit minor, you can tell if you have ridden with stans long enough. i still carried spare tubes when i used stans, but never had to use them. when used properly (having enough sealant in the tire) Stans will save your butt in most situations, where as a standard tube will pinch flat, or puncture.

[jschwart73]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

Everybody obviously loves the Nevegals, but any love for the Panny Fire XC's?

How would the two compare?

Give me a couple days and I'll put up my thoughts on this comparison - I'm swapping out Fire XC Pros for Nevegals...

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by guero

Stans will save your butt in most situations, where as a standard tube will pinch flat, or puncture.

OK, so advantages I see so far are:
1) No tubes = no pinch flats
2) Stans will seal minor punctures w/o resorting to patching or tube change (probably, if properly maintained w/fresh sealant)
3) Slight reduction in rolling mass = slightly better accelleration

Disadvantages:
1) Not as compatible w/some tires as others
2) May require a compressor when installing
3) Gotta mess with the sealant goop
4) Tire "burps"
5) More expensive system than tubes (unless you're prone to flats & have to replace tubes constantly)

Is that about right?

[Pho'dUp]

You're also forgetting the enviromental impact. No more flatted tubes to discard.

It's worth it to Stan's just to be able to run lower pressure. Best bet is still UST tire + UST rim though + Stan's sealant. I have some wheels converted using Stan's rim strips and it works, but the Tubeless ready Stan's Arch rims I have using just their yellow tape is way easier.

Panaracer Fire XCs 2.1s. Don't wear well. The knobs will start tearing off at some point. And if you run it as instructed the rear tire brakes terribly. Not predictable at all. Running the rear tire the other way, and the climbing traction blows. Super skinny tire for a 2.1, these are like most companies 1.8-1.9 tire.

Nevegals in the rear are way way better.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Pho'dUp

You're also forgetting the enviromental impact. No more flatted tubes to discard.

It's worth it to Stan's just to be able to run lower pressure. Best bet is still UST tire + UST rim though + Stan's sealant. I have some wheels converted using Stan's rim strips and it works, but the Tubeless ready Stan's Arch rims I have using just their yellow tape is way easier.

Please tell me you're not running like 8lbs of air and still killing me on the climbs!

Good point on the enviro impact, but then again, is the sealant enviro friendly? And what about the resources going to new wheels just because they're the latest thing (playing devil's advocate)

UST tires + rims means no sealant is required, right? People just run the sealant for puncture resistance?

Sorry for the basic questions, but this is all new to me. I just came into possession of some UST rims & tires with sealant in them (haven't even ridden them yet), so I'm trying to catch up on what I've gotten myself into

[mtnbikej]

Originally Posted by Waldo

Please tell me you're not running like 8lbs of air and still killing me on the climbs!

Good point on the enviro impact, but then again, is the sealant enviro friendly? And what about the resources going to new wheels just because they're the latest thing (playing devil's advocate)

UST tires + rims means no sealant is required, right? People just run the sealant for puncture resistance?

Sorry for the basic questions, but this is all new to me. I just came into possession of some UST rims & tires with sealant in them (haven't even ridden them yet), so I'm trying to catch up on what I've gotten myself into

Most people still run a sealant because the tires' ability to hold air is not very consistant when it comes to the tolerances of the rubber. The tires tend to bleed air quicker without some type of sealant. Or so I have been told. I still run the old standby.......tubes.

[Pho'dUp]

Originally Posted by Waldo

Please tell me you're not running like 8lbs of air and still killing me on the climbs!

Good point on the enviro impact, but then again, is the sealant enviro friendly? And what about the resources going to new wheels just because they're the latest thing (playing devil's advocate)

UST tires + rims means no sealant is required, right? People just run the sealant for puncture resistance?

Sorry for the basic questions, but this is all new to me. I just came into possession of some UST rims & tires with sealant in them (haven't even ridden them yet), so I'm trying to catch up on what I've gotten myself into

Well I figure the environmental impact of producing and using the Sealant is way less compared to the dozen or so tubes I'll go through in a year. Especially the small amount of sealant I'm using. The one bottle I have is gonna last a long time. I should look more into the best way to recycle tubes/tires. Anyone know the best place to recycle bicycle rubber, and especially C02 cannisters?

As far as new production of new wheels and tires, well I converted an existing set I had at home Waldo. Also, to offset your environmental impact Waldo, I have some 1995 non-tubeless V-brake 7 speed wheels at home you're welcome to use instead of your new hoops. You can be green and donate your new UST wheels to someone buying their first mtn. bike.

As far as tire pressure. I"m running about 7lbs. lower in the rear tire with tubeless.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Pho'dUp

...I have some 1995 non-tubeless V-brake 7 speed wheels at home you're welcome to use instead of your new hoops. You can be green and donate your new UST wheels to someone buying their first mtn. bike.

Thanks, but, errr...no thanks!

[Nic]

great info guys! Thanks for the posts

[tkblazer]

has anyone here run the continental speed king or mountain king tires yet?

[jschwart73]

Originally Posted by Pho'dUp

Panaracer Fire XCs 2.1s. Don't wear well. The knobs will start tearing off at some point. And if you run it as instructed the rear tire brakes terribly. Not predictable at all. Running the rear tire the other way, and the climbing traction blows. Super skinny tire for a 2.1, these are like most companies 1.8-1.9 tire.

Good to know, I was definitely noticing that the 2.1 was VERY skinny, I just figured that since I was going from 2.35 909's to 2.1's, I was just seeing the difference.

You're right about braking, the XC Pro is VERY unpredictable on the brakes in the rear and wears out pretty quickly in the back.

I haven't had a chance to ride now that I've mounted up some Nevegals, hopefully I'll get out tomorrow. I'm going to try 2.1 rear DTC and 2.35 Stick-E front combination...

[jschwart73]

Rode for the first time on Nevegals - 2.35 StickE front, 2.1 DTC rear. I swapped them in place of the Fire XC Pros I've been running. The rear was 100g lighter, the front was 60g heavier, since it's a 2.35 compared to the 2.1 Fire XC.

Rear:
Climbing - Mostly a wash in comparison to the Fire XC's, but felt better when I was in the saddle, worse when I was out. Makes no sense to me, but that's how it felt.
Braking - Worlds better than the Fire XC, works very well on the brakes.
Cornering - More about cornering when I talk about the front, but never did I have any issues cornering, the rear stayed where it was supposed to.

Front:
Climbing - I made a lot of changes to the front of the bike (bar end grips, lowered the stem), so I can't really say what made the difference, but the front end didn't seem to wander as much.
Braking - Simply amazing on the brakes compared to the Fire XC. My front brake is usable on dirt now and very effective. I nearly killed an old man who was walking the opposite direction on a very narrow, exposed singletrack that we were flying down, I grabbed a handful of front and the bike stopped. Very confidence inspiring.
Cornering - I never knew how skittish and loose the Fire XC front was until I put this tire on. The Nevegal is very grippy and gave me a lot more confidence in the front end.

Rolling resistance - The tires have a little more rolling resistance than the Fire XC, and the front makes a LOT of noise, made me laugh more than once... Didn't bother me too much and I think the tradeoff in traction is well worth it.

[DeeZee]

Originally Posted by Waldo

Pardon my ignorance - not the first or last time - but what's the big plus to Stan's, UST, etc? It seems like every time I read or hear something about these systems it involves high-pressure-bead-setting, goop-squirting, tire-burping, messes. I thought there was supposed to be a performance advantage with reduced weight, but if you have to squirt more goop in every couple months, doesn't it add up to the weight of a tube pretty quickly? And don't most people end up carrying a tube anyway for emergencies? And isn't it all kinda pricey, with more expensive tires plus all that goop & stuff?

I don't get many flats. I carry a spare tube or two. I get normal tires at good sale prices. It all seems so simple: What am I doing wrong?

flats in two rides. Dam goat heads

Ditching the tubes again......soon

[1080P]

Originally Posted by Pain Freak

I've got the Schwalbe Big Betty on one of my bikes in the front, and it is a great tire. I do love the grip and the cornering is top notch, but I think I've found one even better then it. While in Mammoth I was running a Mutano Raptor (DO NOT BUY THIS TIRE) and I went to Footloose in town to see about another tire to handle the conditions up there. They told me the locals were running a Specialized Chunder 2.5. It has a slightly bigger footprint then the Big Betty and is a little heavier 400 grams to be exact, but I feel it's worth it. Try this tire and you won't be disappointed. I still would run the Big Betty too if I was looking for a lighter tire (800 grams, I believe)

I run the Schwalbe Big Betty 2.4 up front also. I was running a Fat Albert 2.35 on the rear. Great tire, but pavement to and from the fire roads eats the soft compound up fast. At that point, I switched to a Panaracer Fire XC Pro 2.1 on the rear. Fast, fast, fast tire, good on fire road, good on dry single track, good on pavement too, hauls ass in the rolling resistance department. I was coasting down sections of road (highway 2) from Mt Lowe that others had to pedal, to keep up with me. I rode Suicide with the Panaracer 2.1 on the rear for the first time, last Thursday.... yikes! Sucks, slippery on the rocks there, very, just like it was on Hummingbird, Chumash and Rocky Peak. The Panaracer XC fire pro likes to grip on a nice even surface. Irregular surfaces or when wet makes it sketchy.

Absolutely dangerous /sucks when wet. Coming down through the creek bottoms on El Prieto and climbing out, I couldn't, the tire was slipping everywhere, I had to unclip and walk some of the climbs after repeated traction failure after creek crossings. This is stuff that the Fat Albert was outstanding at, stuck like velcro under most all riding conditions.

Soon, I will try some Michelin All Mountain AT's that I bought up at Footloose in Mammoth on the rear. But for now, the Big Betty is perfect up front.

[un-kola]

Originally Posted by Waldo

Please tell me you're not running like 8lbs of air and still killing me on the climbs!

Good point on the enviro impact, but then again, is the sealant enviro friendly? And what about the resources going to new wheels just because they're the latest thing (playing devil's advocate)

UST tires + rims means no sealant is required, right? People just run the sealant for puncture resistance?

Sorry for the basic questions, but this is all new to me. I just came into possession of some UST rims & tires with sealant in them (haven't even ridden them yet), so I'm trying to catch up on what I've gotten myself into

I run ust rims and tires with Stan's sealant in them.After a ride I usually pull out several goatheads from each tire.Especially in the fall and early winter.Spin the tire and it seals up in in a couple of rotations.The burps happen when you run at very low pressure,just remount and pressure up.The only trail flat I've had in 4+ years is a tire that was skewered by some barbed wire.Instead of a patch kit I carry a bottle of crazy glue,rubber bands,and a small bottle of Stan's(use a small empty lube oil bottle).The rubber bands make a perfect plug,seal it with the crazy glue,and after about 10 min.add the Stan's put the tire back on and ride like nothing happened.I was able to ride like that untill the tire wore out,and when all else fails I still carry a tube(which I usually wind up giving away on the trail).Some tires require a compressor or CO2 to fill when you first mount them on your rim.After that my floor pump does just fine if I should take them off then remount them.I also carry the CO2 and 4-5 bottles(although I've only used it once or twice),instead of a mini-pump when I'm on the trail.Try different tires and see what you like.I'm currently running Spez Roll-X Pros 2.2 ust,and am thinking of try the new Spez Eskars 2.35 ust.You might never go back to tubes,I know I won't.Hope this helps-Lloyd

[guero]

Originally Posted by un-kola

.I also carry the CO2 and 4-5 bottles(although I've only used it once or twice),instead of a mini-pump when I'm on the trail.

word has it that the CO2 cartridges will actually 'freeze' the stans and thus eliminating its intended use. ive never tested it, but ive heard it mentioned on a few occasions.

[katonk]

Originally Posted by un-kola

Instead of a patch kit I carry a bottle of crazy glue,rubber bands,and a small bottle of Stan's(use a small empty lube oil bottle).The rubber bands make a perfect plug,seal it with the crazy glue,and after about 10 min.

Are you pushing the rubber band though the puncture, or laying it over it lake a tube patch? Isn't 10 minutes a long time for a trail side repair? By then I think I'd lose patience and just drop a tube in.

The Spec Eskar 2Blis is a great tire. It's tubeless, 2.3, and (relatively) light. What's not to like? Even the 35 PSI minimum pressure isn't an issue. I've run my front as low as 25 PSI, and I'm a card-carrying clyde.