Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello I did do a search but could not find anything.

I'm looking to buy a pair of LUST High rollers to replace the Kenda Nevegal UST on my Trek 8500. I've read and heard from people that the Maxxis come out under sized. On Mtbtires.com the non ust Highrollers came out more or less the same size as the 2.1 UST Nevegals and a quick comparison yesterday on a ride with another riders 2.35 High rollers again showed them to be pretty close in width.

So for trail riding would I be better off going for the 2.35? I'd prefer cornering grip over rolling resistance.
 

·
err, 27.5+
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
Surfas said:
For what I read the 2.1 are more 1.9/2.0 and 2.35 like a 2.1/2.2.
Spot on. Mounted to an XM819 those are about the numbers I come up with.

Yes, for trail riding I think the 2.35 HR is where it is at. The 2.1 is an interesting tire. Much more round in profile, so the gap between ctr and edge knobs is even more pronounced. It is a great mudder, but the rest of the time I would take the 2.35.

I am currently favoring the 2.35 super tacky ust in the front, but I would keep the 60A out back. I hope one of these days that Maxxis brings back the tacky compound in the 2.35 ust as they are pretty hard to find now.
 

·
err, 27.5+
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
Surfas said:
The problem with the Super Tacky 2.35 UST are the weight, 950/1000 kg
Mine are both sub-900g. Of course many may have been heavier. The 60A versions that I have had weighed in about 800-850g. A fair bit lighter than the tacky compound, FWIW.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top