Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am a 190lb aggressive cross country rider who rides all type of terrain and conditions (expect sand). I spent 2 years on Fire XC Pro 2.1s and like them but I wanted to move to something new and maybe slightly larger for fast DH sections and low grip areas.

I now have a Blue Groove 2.35" on the front and Nokian NBX 2.3" on the rear. This set up has amazing grip but it is slooooow. I can hardly pedal it on pavement :p Can anyone suggest a better rolling combo for me? I was thinking NBX 2.3" front and BG 2.1" rear, since I feel the large NBX rolls better than the large (2.35") BG. Does this sound right?

Can anyone make other tire suggestions? Ideally I'd like to stay under about 650g per tire.

Thanks
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
R332 said:
I am a 190lb aggressive cross country rider who rides all type of terrain and conditions (expect sand). I spent 2 years on Fire XC Pro 2.1s and like them but I wanted to move to something new and maybe slightly larger for fast DH sections and low grip areas.

I now have a Blue Groove 2.35" on the front and Nokian NBX 2.3" on the rear. This set up has amazing grip but it is slooooow. I can hardly pedal it on pavement :p Can anyone suggest a better rolling combo for me? I was thinking NBX 2.3" front and BG 2.1" rear, since I feel the large NBX rolls better than the large (2.35") BG. Does this sound right?

Can anyone make other tire suggestions? Ideally I'd like to stay under about 650g per tire.

Thanks
You can not have it both ways. What is more important to you? Traction and flat protection in the rough or easy pedaling on pavement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
shiggy©®™ said:
You can not have it both ways. What is more important to you? Traction and flat protection in the rough or easy pedaling on pavement?
Fair enough, I understand that I can't have the best of both worlds, but I still think the BG 2.35 + NBX 2.3" is a bit slow on the trails. What would you move to with good traction and better rolling speed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Bg 2.1

Try the BG 2.1 front & rear. I go back and forth between the 2.1s and 2.35s and I think the 2.1s are a great blend of decent rolling resistance and grip. I do love the 2.35s for downhill speed and cornering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
have it both ways

shiggy©®™ said:
You can not have it both ways. What is more important to you? Traction and flat protection in the rough or easy pedaling on pavement?
Sure you can have it both ways. For a couple of years I ran Bontrager Revolt Super X tires, setup with Stans.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
Gripshift said:
Sure you can have it both ways. For a couple of years I ran Bontrager Revolt Super X tires, setup with Stans.
The BG 2.35/NBX 2.3 combo blows away the Super X in terms of cornering/downhill traction in the rough. Good XC race tires though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
ringmaster said:
Fair enough, I understand that I can't have the best of both worlds, but I still think the BG 2.35 + NBX 2.3" is a bit slow on the trails. What would you move to with good traction and better rolling speed?
I like the Kenda Cortez 2.4. Big volume though they may or may not be grippier than the Fire XCs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,843 Posts
ringmaster said:
Fair enough, I understand that I can't have the best of both worlds, but I still think the BG 2.35 + NBX 2.3" is a bit slow on the trails. What would you move to with good traction and better rolling speed?
How about the NBX 2.3 on the front, and get an NBX Lite 2.2 for the rear? The rear tire has more effect on rolling resistance, and the NBX 2.3 makes a great front tire. You can save the BG/NBX combo for when you know you'll be on extra rough trails.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
You can too have it both ways!

shiggy©®™ said:
The BG 2.35/NBX 2.3 combo blows away the Super X in terms of cornering/downhill traction in the rough. Good XC race tires though.
I don't know why you say you can't have it both ways, because you certainly can. I run Kenda Kinetics front and back. They ride smooth on the pavement, and grip better than most other tires on the trail. Whether your climbing, descending, freeriding, it just doesn't matter. Oh yeah, and you would be hard pressed to find another MTB tire to beat them in cornering on road or off.
I ride pretty aggressively and I have never had a minutes trouble with the Kinetics. I had the nokians for a while, and besides being more expensive than the kinetics, they didn't grip any better. As a matter of fact, in a shootout i think the kinetics would take top honors. Mikey42186
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
mikey42186 said:
I don't know why you say you can't have it both ways, because you certainly can. I run Kenda Kinetics front and back. They ride smooth on the pavement, and grip better than most other tires on the trail. Whether your climbing, descending, freeriding, it just doesn't matter. Oh yeah, and you would be hard pressed to find another MTB tire to beat them in cornering on road or off.
I ride pretty aggressively and I have never had a minutes trouble with the Kinetics. I had the nokians for a while, and besides being more expensive than the kinetics, they didn't grip any better. As a matter of fact, in a shootout i think the kinetics would take top honors. Mikey42186
Which Kinetic are you using? I have a set of the 2.6 DH and they are OK but no match for the Gazzaloddi 2.6 (except for price) and the Kenetics are just so-so on the road. I find the NBX 2.3 smoother riding and just as or more grippy in the rough. The Cortez 2.4 is faster than either with most of the traction. It is just not as versatile (keep it away from wet conditions).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,763 Posts
Best thing ive found

R332 said:
I am a 190lb aggressive cross country rider who rides all type of terrain and conditions (expect sand). I spent 2 years on Fire XC Pro 2.1s and like them but I wanted to move to something new and maybe slightly larger for fast DH sections and low grip areas.

I now have a Blue Groove 2.35" on the front and Nokian NBX 2.3" on the rear. This set up has amazing grip but it is slooooow. I can hardly pedal it on pavement :p Can anyone suggest a better rolling combo for me? I was thinking NBX 2.3" front and BG 2.1" rear, since I feel the large NBX rolls better than the large (2.35") BG. Does this sound right?

Can anyone make other tire suggestions? Ideally I'd like to stay under about 650g per tire.

Thanks
Is using a 2.1 BG in rear and a 2.35 Fat Albert up front.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
shiggy©®™ said:
Which Kinetic are you using? I have a set of the 2.6 DH and they are OK but no match for the Gazzaloddi 2.6 (except for price) and the Kenetics are just so-so on the road. I find the NBX 2.3 smoother riding and just as or more grippy in the rough. The Cortez 2.4 is faster than either with most of the traction. It is just not as versatile (keep it away from wet conditions).
Shiggy, I've been running the Stick-E 2.35 Kinetics for the past few weeks and am really impressed with them. The standard Kinetics are too hard a compound for me, but the Stick-E model are fine for the varied surfaces I find in Western MT/Eastern ID.

Have you used the Stick-E Kinetics, and if so, how do they compare to the Nevegal and Blue Groove in the same sizes?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
gonzostrike said:
Shiggy, I've been running the Stick-E 2.35 Kinetics for the past few weeks and am really impressed with them. The standard Kinetics are too hard a compound for me, but the Stick-E model are fine for the varied surfaces I find in Western MT/Eastern ID.

Have you used the Stick-E Kinetics, and if so, how do they compare to the Nevegal and Blue Groove in the same sizes?
Mine are the standard rubber.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top