Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Tire test results from german "bike" magazine

Jump to Latest
301 - 320 of 336 Posts
#301 ·
pat6192 said:
It seems Bike tests above are about tubetype tires.
The rolling resistance is provided by the tread but also by the sides (?)
Continental, Schwalbe and Hutchinson have tires in the three versions, tubetype, TLR and tubeless.
Once again, does any have information about side effect on rolling resistance ?
Click to expand...
Previous testing a few years ago showed about 1 watt lower ghetto tubeless on the drum with a Ra Ra 2.25. That's at that the tested speed, load and tire pressure.Don't know what tube they used .They did tests on tubes and there was about a 5 watt spread between latex and heavier AM butyl tube.
 
#302 ·
If we take the results above:
Rocket Ron 26*2.1 evo 25,9 W
Rocket Ron 29*2.25 evo 26,4 W
Theorically the wider Rocket Ron should have less rolling resistance, so it appears with Schwalbe tires 29er have more resistance than 26. The difference is weak...
 
#303 ·
I'm suprise when comparing the Michelin Wild Race'r and Michelin Wild Grip'r

The heavier AM Grip'r have lower rolling resitance than the XC Race'r. But the Race'r have better grip in turns, wouldn't it be more normal if the results where the other way around. AM tire with better grip and XC tire with lower rolling resistance?
 
#304 ·
I'm surprised by the big difference between between two tires I just compared back-to-back out on the trail: the Captain (39 watts) and the X-King (25 watts). While the X-King did seem to roll easier, it was only a little easier, and I stress LITTLE. I should stated that the Captain was 29x2.2 and the X-King was 29x2.4. That being said, the Captain seems to roll really easy to me, and I've read numerous reviews stating how good they roll considering the amount of grip they provide. Surely there are other parameters (the obvious one being contact surface) that's coming to play here that just can't be re-created in the lab. I dunno, I know this is all very debatable, but I just have a hard time believing these results are applicable to real world use. Or, maybe I'm just not very perceptive when it comes to rolling resistance.:confused:

bk
 
#306 ·
Rivet said:
Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
Click to expand...
I think it is the other way around. The Euros have been focused on hysteresis for low rolling resistance for a long time. And that includes Michelin (French; using Silica) and Schwalbe with elastic base compound. They have the tradition, and they are the actual tire manufacturing companies with research resources - not a brand that contracts out manufacturing to a tire company.

Other companies are now bringing their focus on RR and we all benefit.

Regardless, as stated repeatedly in this thread, this is the best information we have right now and it is much better than Mountain Bike Action's stamp of hyperbole :rolleyes:

P
 
#307 ·
Thats always the same!, it depends on who make the test, if do germans. then germasn tire will win.
Its simply

i think the only way to know what tire its best to you its to prove to many tires until you find the tire that fits well on your riding style.

And whats fit on you, may not fit on your friends.

Discussion about tires its like football, we will never agree!
 
#308 ·
Rivet said:
Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Other mfgs have also done well. But the tires you may think are fast because of marketing misconception may not do so well. Learn from that. It's mostly about the casing technology not tread height or spacing.
 
#310 ·
gvs_nz said:
Other mfgs have also done well. But the tires you may think are fast because of marketing misconception may not do so well. Learn from that. It's mostly about the casing technology not tread height or spacing.
Click to expand...
Well that doesn't explain why German, Austrian and Swiss companies also win every other type of test they perform.
 
#311 · (Edited)
There's very few other tires they do test. Look at the price and availabilty of tires llike Maxxis in Europe.

Look at the depth of research that has gone in to the best road tires[European] that have been availalble for what seems like centuries.

European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
The fact that they even test tire speeds in their magazines must tell you something. It is useful info but, at the end of the day, it is only one factor in choosing a tire.

Their Freeride magazine had tires like Maxxis Ardent 2.6 , Specialized Clutch Sx win out over Rubber Queen and Big Betty 2.4 for overall freeride tires and maxxis minion F 2.5 and specialized Chunder and DH 2.3 win against Der Kaiser and Wicked Will.

It's an off shoot of BIke magazine so they do the same tests on Rolling resistance, cornering traction and puncture resistance.
 
#312 ·
gvs_nz said:
There's very few other tires they do test. Look at the price and availabilty of tires llike Maxxis in Europe.

Look at the depth of research that has gone in to the best road tires[European] that have been availalble for what seems like centuries.

European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
The fact that they even test tire speeds in their magazines must tell you something. It is useful info but, at the end of the day, it is only one factor in choosing a tire.

Their Freeride magazine had tires like Maxxis Ardent 2.6 , Specialized Clutch Sx win out over Rubber Queen and Big Betty 2.4 for overall freeride tires and maxxis minion F 2.5 and specialized Chunder and DH 2.3 win against Der Kaiser and Wicked Will.

It's an off shoot of BIke magazine so they do the same tests on Rolling resistance, cornering traction and puncture resistance.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing that. Don't have a link to it do you?

Thanks,

G
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#314 ·
gvs_nz said:
European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's true and I would like to add that it's not just trail conditions, but also the typical style of riding.

But... it's not the whole of Europe though. For example, Germany seems to emphasise the physical endurance side of mountainbiking, while France is much more involved in the bike handling side.

I know this is a gross generalisation, but you get that when you try to pin down bike-cultural differences. What I observe at XC racing events is very clear to me. Again French and German XC events: On one hand 'At your own risk, walk or climb down if you have to', on the other hand 'Everybody has to be able to bike 99,9% of the course safely, or it'll be considered too dangerous and we'll get sued or won't get permissions for next year if someone gets into an accident'.

So what you end up with in Germany is lots of fireroad climbing/descending and the corresponding Schwalbe/Conti tires. In France: Techy, rocky singletrack and hey, everybody is on something beefier. Much more Hutchinson and Maxxis. Also the German brands, but the UST or snakeskin/protection varieties.

I do not think there is test bias based on patriotism. German made tires are better at rolling on a rotating solid drum... I just wished they performed more tests like this one from a few years back, but with different brands: Mountain Bike Tyre Rolling Resitance - MtbOnline

To me, that is still the benchmark test for translating tire characteristics to real world application.
 
#320 · (Edited)
Tally Ho said:
A question. How can nobby nic's (RR.28.0 watt) possibly have a better rolling resistance (be faster rolling) than kendra small block 8's (RR 34.2 watt). Something seems amiss there.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure that Small Block 8's actually have more rolling resistance than Nobby Nics, but here's how it could be true:

Rubber Compounds The rolling resistance of a tire primarily is generated from the flexing of the rubber compounds in the tread and sidewall. When rubber flexes, some of that energy is stored (like in a spring) and is returned when it flexes back to its natural, 'unflexed' state. But some of that energy is transformed into heat, and is obviously not returned. Not all rubber compounds are created equally. Schwalbe uses a silica filler in their bicycle tire compounds, and silica compounds generally have less hysteresis than carbon black compounds. The polymer used in the compound also plays an important role in the compound's hysteresis and loss modulus.

Tread Pattern The tread pattern of a mountain bike tire also plays a role. Imagine a mountain bike tire with tall, widely spaced knobs. As the tire rolls, these knobs come into contact with the ground. They exert regions of high pressure onto the tire's casing, causing additional, localized flex. In addition, tall knobs can 'squirm' and flex as they come into contact with the ground. As explained above, additional flex equates to additional energy loss. The tire's high rate of speed means this is happening pretty fast, resulting in vibration (obviously more noticeable on hard surfaces). This vibration travels through the tire, rim, spokes, and hubs to the bicycle. If you can feel this vibration through the saddle, imagine how much energy is being wasted. Of course on soft surfaces, this is not so much of an issue.

Now the Nobby Nic obviously has a more aggressive tread pattern than the Small Block 8, so it has this going against it for rolling resistance on a smooth drum. But we know that the Nobby Nic uses a compound that I'm 99% sure has less hysteresis than Kenda's. We also know that the undertread thickness (i.e. the amount of rubber underneath the knobs and on top of the casing) of the Nobby Nic is less than the Small Block 8. So as the tire rolls, less rubber is being flexed. So theoretically, less rubber being flexed and a compound with lower hysteresis equates to less rolling resistance, all other things being equal.

bholwell said:
[The Ikon] actually is faster than the CrossMark in real-world conditions. As I understand it, the rolling resistance testing is done on a smooth roller at a single pressure and a single load. Far from the best method to measure RR of mtb tires.

Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...
Click to expand...
The above is why I question the validity of the magazine's data. I know for a fact that the DHF 26x2.35 has more rolling resistance than the Ikon 26x2.2. So I don't trust their data at all.

Another issue is that all testing was conducted on a smooth drum at a constant pressure. Do you ride on a completely smooth surface, and do you ride every tire at the same pressure? Neither do I. On a rocky, bumpy surface, a larger (wider) tire run at a lower pressure will be able to absorb the impacts better, and less energy will be transmitted to the bike and rider. On a very rocky, rooty trail a Racing Ralph 2.25 will be faster than a Furious Fred 1.9, even though the FF would have lower rolling resistance on a smooth drum test. And on a loose trail, an aggressive tread pattern is less of a hindrance than on a smooth, hard trail.

Bottom line Take the Bike Magazine's rolling resistance numbers with a huge grain of salt. Pick the tire that is right for the trail, right for you, and don't sweat a difference of 8 watts of questionable rolling resistance data.
 
301 - 320 of 336 Posts
About this Discussion
335 Replies
164 Participants
Last post:
Spectre
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion