Nevegal as rear tire?

[ryandood]

Is anyone using a Nevagal as a rear tire or is it mostly used as a front tire? I'm getting close to having to replace my rear and was going to put a Pararacer XC Pro on the back but want something smaller than 2.1 if possible and then run a 2.1 up front.

I am just trying to keep my wheels wieghtrolling resistance down. Is 2.3 front/2.1 rear not that bad for my XC riding and I should just go with this? Or go 2.1 front/less than 2.0 rear?

I know there is a tire review thread and I've read through it and read that both tires are awsome, just wondering if they would be right for my type of riding. I imagine preference has a lot to do with it, just curious to what you guys think.

Thanks.

[slowSSer]

absolutely. there is a rear-specific version too.

only downside: due to soft rubber, they do wear kinda quick.

[office]

Nevegal comes in 1.95 size. Almost the same weight as the Small Block 8, but way more traction. I use one for a front tire and it works great. A couple guys I ride with use them front/back and love them.

[allison]

If you are looking to do XC tires only I wouldn't do a Nevegal. Rolling resistance is higher than with many other tires.

I love the Neve as a great traction tire and run one F/R on my Enduro.

Unless you are racing at a high level I wouldn't worry too much about a tire smaller than 2.1.

Maybe try a Crossmark?

[richie_rich]

If you are a bigger person, prone to pinch flatting, or not at finesse rider I wouldn't go smaller than a 2.1. Some of those 1.9/2.0 tires can be pretty skinny and lacking in volume. Just my opinion...

Originally Posted by allison

Maybe try a Crossmark?

P.S. Listen to Allison, I have been extremely happy with the Crossmark and the TT is not a bad option either.

[el_d00der1n0]

what about small block 8 as a rear?

[theclayster]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

what about small block 8 as a rear?

i am using a small block 2.1 on the rear of my bike and love it.

[Red Ryder]

Just to add more to the mix, my wife likes the Kenda Karma. I think she's running 2.1 in front and 1.9 in back.
They're lighter and have less rolling resistance than the Nevagals.

[el_d00der1n0]

Originally Posted by theclayster

i am using a small block 2.1 on the rear of my bike and love it.

that's what i'm thinking for my ss. nevegal 2.3 up front -- small block 2.1 on the back.

[dstepper]

I really don't care that much about rolling resistance, I am slow and will probably always be slow. I just don't want to go off the trail and down the cliff again like I did running a Small Block 8 in the San Gabriels. Give me the best traction tire I can find.

I have also found that once you staring using 2.35 and 2.5 tires narrow tires don't feel right. Remember I am the one that thinks light bikes are over rated.

Dean

[guero]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

what about small block 8 as a rear?

you do like having traction under braking right?

i have a 2.1 dtc nevegal on the back of my 5-Spot and like it alot. it has pretty big knobs, so there is a tad bit rolling resistance, but the dtc kinda sorta helps in that department.

[allison]

FWIW, according to Justin the 2.35 Neve weighs about the same as the 2.1. YMMV.

[el_d00der1n0]

Originally Posted by guero

you do like having traction under braking right?

I don't use my back brakes.

[theclayster]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

that's what i'm thinking for my ss. nevegal 2.3 up front -- small block 2.1 on the back.

I am running the Kenda Blue Groove up front in a 2.1 and that tire handles better than the neve I had on it before. and running tubeless front and rear.

[Kid A]

gots me a Blue groove sticky 2.35 up and nev 2.1 in rear. like the combo for great traction. like others said mos def runs a bit slow and wears fast but at least now i have something to blame my turtle like speed on

[Red Hot Sloth]

+1....
I have never ridden in the San Gabriels, but I've seen the pics.
I agree 110%.
I remember running the skinny tires back in the '90's when I thought it was smart to have as light a bike as possible. Flatting all the time, tearing tires all the time, and crashing and wanting more traction are a thing of the past now that I'm not concerned with lightweight skinny tires.

Originally Posted by dstepper

I really don't care that much about rolling resistance, I am slow and will probably always be slow. I just don't want to go off the trail and down the cliff again like I did running a Small Block 8 in the San Gabriels. Give me the best traction tire I can find.

I have also found that once you staring using 2.35 and 2.5 tires narrow tires don't feel right. Remember I am the one that thinks light bikes are over rated.

Dean

[el_d00der1n0]

Originally Posted by Red Hot Sloth

+1....
I have never ridden in the San Gabriels, but I've seen the pics.
I agree 110%.
I remember running the skinny tires back in the '90's when I thought it was smart to have as light a bike as possible. Flatting all the time, tearing tires all the time, and crashing and wanting more traction are a thing of the past now that I'm not concerned with lightweight skinny tires.

this coming from a guy that would run 3.0 if he could find them.

[dstepper]

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

this coming from a guy that would run 3.0 if he could find them.

Ride a Pugsly then tell me what you think about wide tires. I thought that the bike rocked.

Dean

[mazer75]

I have been running Nevegals front and rear for about 9 months now. I love them. 2.5 front, 2.35 rear. Both Stick-E. Never looked into what things weight though, and rolling resistance isn't a concern either (at least for me). I like the extra punishment on my climbs!

[Red Hot Sloth]

If Santa Cruz made a Heckler to fit 3.0 tires I would so totally get it, same with the fox forx...that would in all honesty be awesome

Originally Posted by el_d00der1n0

this coming from a guy that would run 3.0 if he could find them.