I see that the Pana Fire XC Pro gets very good reviews... Are they as good as they say? How are they as a front tire, coupled with Python rear? Weight? I was intrigued because I saw that the kevlar bead version was inexpensive. Are there variations of the Fire Pro XC, besides the size? Any feedback is appreciated....I am still looking for a nice front tire to couple with the Python on a Racer X. . . hardpack, singletrack...some loose soil and sand.
Fire XC Pro?
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
OOPS...I see that these are pretty HEAVY tires...hmmmmm. Was looking to keep weight down, and also have knobs...the front (as I have posted before) seems to wash out on me with the Pythons. I have Scorpians (Hutch) on the SS and there is real confidence there...
Joined
·
916 Posts
The fire xc were really good rear tire for me... lots of grip when climbing !
But they seemed like a pretty average front tire to me nothing exceptional
They are also pretty durable :thumbsup:
But they seemed like a pretty average front tire to me nothing exceptional
They are also pretty durable :thumbsup:
Joined
·
78 Posts
Roll X
I have specialized Roll X (non-tubeless) on my racer X and they work great. I'd like to convert them to tubeless using a Stan's kit to cut down on flats, though. I ride in the desert Southwest so cholla is a big issue. I've used Panaracer Fire XC Pros before and liked them. Like most people on this forum report, they seem to be a jack-of-all trades but master of none. Good tire, inexpensive, solid performer in many settings.
I have specialized Roll X (non-tubeless) on my racer X and they work great. I'd like to convert them to tubeless using a Stan's kit to cut down on flats, though. I ride in the desert Southwest so cholla is a big issue. I've used Panaracer Fire XC Pros before and liked them. Like most people on this forum report, they seem to be a jack-of-all trades but master of none. Good tire, inexpensive, solid performer in many settings.
Fire xc pro is great everywhere but mud, where it is terrible (knobs too close together).
Heavy? I think the 2.1 runs around 550 - 580 grams.
If they made this tire in a 2.3, I'd still be on them all the time. I'm trying the 2.25 cinder, which holds great, but is much slower in the rolling department, and a bit heavy. It doesn't quite seem like a true 2.25, either.
Cinder up front, fire in back is a pretty tough-to-beat hdxc combo IMO.
Heavy? I think the 2.1 runs around 550 - 580 grams.
If they made this tire in a 2.3, I'd still be on them all the time. I'm trying the 2.25 cinder, which holds great, but is much slower in the rolling department, and a bit heavy. It doesn't quite seem like a true 2.25, either.
Cinder up front, fire in back is a pretty tough-to-beat hdxc combo IMO.
Fire XC vs Cinder
My Fire XCs weigh around 580g (tube tires) which I don't think is heavy. My 1.95 Cinder weighs around 565g. The Cinder seems gripier (as in the rubber compound) so I can run a wornout Cinder and still get decent traction. I like the Fire XCs, though. For the price they're a decent tire. Don't know about the tubeless version. I also see that the Cinder comes in bigger sizes and the weights go up up up! Jeez, louise, who needs to ride such heavy tires in a cross country scenario? Not me. I never run a tire that weighs over 600 g.
My Fire XCs weigh around 580g (tube tires) which I don't think is heavy. My 1.95 Cinder weighs around 565g. The Cinder seems gripier (as in the rubber compound) so I can run a wornout Cinder and still get decent traction. I like the Fire XCs, though. For the price they're a decent tire. Don't know about the tubeless version. I also see that the Cinder comes in bigger sizes and the weights go up up up! Jeez, louise, who needs to ride such heavy tires in a cross country scenario? Not me. I never run a tire that weighs over 600 g.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!