[Earthpig]

Just got 3 new tires the other day. HUGE props to Larry at Mtn. High for the superior deal and fast shipping. Here's what I got:

Nevegal 2.1
Nevegal 2.35
Blue Groove 2.35

All have the Stick-E compound and kevlar bead. The 2.1 Nevegal is definitely going on as the back tire for my FS bike (b/c it's the only one that will fit), but I'm torn as to whether to run the Nevegal 2.35 or the Blue Groove as the front tire, and which of those 2 would be better as a rear tire for my rigid singlespeed. Any opinions out there as to which of the Nevegal or Blue Groove works better as a front and which works better as a rear on dry hardpack with some loose sand and some rocks? Whatever becomes the rear tire on the SS will be paired with my existing Fire FR 2.4 up front. So, Blue Groove or Nevegal as the rear on a SS, or front on a full sus XC bike? The one consideration is I'd like a higher volume rear on the SS and a lighter front on the XC.

 

[CyclingJunkie]

All great tires...

I have been riding with various combinations of those same tires with the addition of the BG 2.1s for the past three months. I think my favorite combo for the type of trails that you described is the BG2.1 in the rear and the BG 2.35 in the front. The BG 2.35 in the front corners really well and rolls pretty well for its size. I know the Nevegal is supposed to be a bit better in loose conditions but I have felt like I get better traction while climbing with the BG in the back. Regardless of which combo you run, I think the BG in the front should be a constant due to its cornering ability.

 

[shiggy]

Just got 3 new tires the other day. HUGE props to Larry at Mtn. High for the superior deal and fast shipping. Here's what I got:

Nevegal 2.1
Nevegal 2.35
Blue Groove 2.35

All have the Stick-E compound and kevlar bead. The 2.1 Nevegal is definitely going on as the back tire for my FS bike (b/c it's the only one that will fit), but I'm torn as to whether to run the Nevegal 2.35 or the Blue Groove as the front tire, and which of those 2 would be better as a rear tire for my rigid singlespeed. Any opinions out there as to which of the Nevegal or Blue Groove works better as a front and which works better as a rear on dry hardpack with some loose sand and some rocks? Whatever becomes the rear tire on the SS will be paired with my existing Fire FR 2.4 up front. So, Blue Groove or Nevegal as the rear on a SS, or front on a full sus XC bike? The one consideration is I'd like a higher volume rear on the SS and a lighter front on the XC.

There is no weight difference between the BG and Neve 2.35 (except normal tire-to-tire variation) so that is not a factor. Both work well f&r.
Of course you can try both on both bikes to see which you prefer but I would start with the BG on the front of FS and the Neve on the rear of the SS. My only complaint with the Neve as a rear tire is the ramped center knobs. On some (loose) surfaces they limit the grip under drive. Turn the tire around and braking suffers. Works fine on the front because there is no drive force. The BG does not have this "problem".

 

[schotter]

hey Shiggy, how are the ride height differences (axle to tread)

There is no weight difference between the BG and Neve 2.35 (except normal tire-to-tire variation) so that is not a factor. Both work well f&r.
Of course you can try both on both bikes to see which you prefer but I would start with the BG on the front of FS and the Neve on the rear of the SS. My only complaint with the Neve as a rear tire is the ramped center knobs. On some (loose) surfaces they limit the grip under drive. Turn the tire around and braking suffers. Works fine on the front because there is no drive force. The BG does not have this "problem".

could I fine tune my steering angle with a BG2.1(r) and BG 2.35(f) to slacken it a tiny bit? Are the different sizes enough to mention (05-10mm)?cheers

 

[shiggy]

could I fine tune my steering angle with a BG2.1(r) and BG 2.35(f) to slacken it a tiny bit? Are the different sizes enough to mention (05-10mm)?cheers

Easy to figure out. Go to the specs on my site, add the casing height and center tread depth and subtract one from the other (use the Neve 2.10 numbers for the BG 2.10).

 

[schotter]

thanks! Looks like differences are marginal

Easy to figure out. Go to the specs on my site, add the casing height and center tread depth and subtract one from the other (use the Neve 2.10 numbers for the BG 2.10).

...less than 5mm...hmmm thought I could find a middle way between the Fox 130 and a Z1 by using a more baloony tire in front..

 

[Jaybo]

The rolling resistance is lower

There is no weight difference between the BG and Neve 2.35 (except normal tire-to-tire variation) so that is not a factor. Both work well f&r.
Of course you can try both on both bikes to see which you prefer but I would start with the BG on the front of FS and the Neve on the rear of the SS. My only complaint with the Neve as a rear tire is the ramped center knobs. On some (loose) surfaces they limit the grip under drive. Turn the tire around and braking suffers. Works fine on the front because there is no drive force. The BG does not have this "problem".

I run the Nokian NBX 2.3 up front and the Kenda Nevegal 2.1 in the rear. The Nevegal is an excellent rear tire because it rolls so easily. The Nokian NBX is a slowwwwwww tire in the rear. Great traction but slow.

My 02. cents,

Jaybo

 

[Jesterrider]

I'm running a 2.1 Nev on the rear of my full-bouncer and a 2.35 BG on the front. I like the combo and the BG hooks up very well in dry, and wet stuff. As for rigid bikes, I can't say from experience, but I do know someone riding a 2.5 BG on a singlespeeds and loving it.
My $.02 - pop the BG up front and rail!

 

[fonseca]

Any opinions out there as to which of the Nevegal or Blue Groove works better as a front and which works better as a rear on dry hardpack with some loose sand and some rocks?

The BG is a much better front tire than the Nev.

I ran it only briefly in the rear, because I felt the Nev was much better at that location, but I know that several people on these forums run BGs both front and rear and seem to like it. Shiggy and I ride trails on opposite coasts, but for me the Nev really hooks up great on climbs, I can shoot up rooty hills out of the saddle and it refuses to break loose. Awesome tires, just slow in 2.5.

 

[chad1433]

Just got 3 new tires the other day. HUGE props to Larry at Mtn. High for the superior deal and fast shipping. Here's what I got:

Nevegal 2.1
Nevegal 2.35
Blue Groove 2.35

All have the Stick-E compound and kevlar bead. The 2.1 Nevegal is definitely going on as the back tire for my FS bike (b/c it's the only one that will fit), but I'm torn as to whether to run the Nevegal 2.35 or the Blue Groove as the front tire, and which of those 2 would be better as a rear tire for my rigid singlespeed. Any opinions out there as to which of the Nevegal or Blue Groove works better as a front and which works better as a rear on dry hardpack with some loose sand and some rocks? Whatever becomes the rear tire on the SS will be paired with my existing Fire FR 2.4 up front. So, Blue Groove or Nevegal as the rear on a SS, or front on a full sus XC bike? The one consideration is I'd like a higher volume rear on the SS and a lighter front on the XC.

I have a BG on the front, 2.35 and matched the rear with a Nevegal 2.35. I have not switched them at all, but the set-up I have is working well. I'd go wit the BG up front, FS. I run close to 40 PSI on the Nevegal (rear)- it still grips well, corners well, climbs great. I'm riding Front Range loose over hardpack as well. It would make a good SS rear tire.

 

[BikeSATORI]

I've tried combinations w/ both the 2.1 BG & Nevegal and the 2.35 BG & Nevegal (although the 2.35 doesn't fit my rear susp) and I like the 2.35 BG best up front, but both 2.1 work really well in the rear. I have already gone through a 2.1 bg (Stick-E compound is really soft!) in the rear and am now using a 2.1 nevegal. I like them best rolling forward, and I really don't notice a lack of traction w/ the ramped knobs. Excellent set of tires.

 

[Zirkel]

Nevegal in the rear...

What's the difference between the 2.0 Lite and the 2.1 Stick-E?

 

[BikeSATORI]

the difference is in weight and tread depth. The lites are essentially a race only tire, since the soft compound wears so fast those tires would'nt last very long. You will sacrifice durability and some traction for less weight.

 

[CyclingJunkie]

reversed Nevegal, braking suffers?

Shiggy, what do you mean the braking suffers when the Nevegal is reversed from its recommended direction?

There is no weight difference between the BG and Neve 2.35 (except normal tire-to-tire variation) so that is not a factor. Both work well f&r.
Of course you can try both on both bikes to see which you prefer but I would start with the BG on the front of FS and the Neve on the rear of the SS. My only complaint with the Neve as a rear tire is the ramped center knobs. On some (loose) surfaces they limit the grip under drive. Turn the tire around and braking suffers. Works fine on the front because there is no drive force. The BG does not have this "problem".

 

[Earthpig]

finally got to try them out

The wife, god bless her, said I couldn't mount these tires until after my birthday (last week), so as of last night I've finally got to try all of them out. Impressions:

Nevegal 2.35 as a rear tire on the singlespeed - One ride on mostly hardpack with some rocks and some deep, sandy sections. It seems to be heavier and have greater rolling resistance than the 2.4 Mutanoraptor (wire bead) it replaced. It felt like I'd changed to a harder gear! I think I'm going back to the Mutano as the rear SS tire and will try the Nevegal as the front, as the Panaracer Fire FR 2.4 doesn't hook up well and tends to wash out in hardpack. (I'll keep the Fire FR for winter/spring conditions around here when the trails are softer...)

Blue Groove 2.35 (front) and Nevegal 2.1 (rear) on the FS/XC gearie - One ride last night on pretty loose, deep, sandy trails with a smattering of hardpack and some logs. This was my first ride using tubes again after having tried the No-tubes stuff. I could definitely tell a positive difference in lateral tire rigidity (but a negative difference in climbing weight). The BG seemed to hook up pretty well in the front, but did wash out a couple of times. The Nevegal overall seemed competent, but did lose some climbing grip on steeper, looser climbs if I moved my weight too far forward (where the Conti Vertical Pro I replaced probably would have gripped when it was newer). The tread pattern on the Nevegal 2.1 looks somewhat like the Panaracer Fire XC 2.1 (which is perhaps the best tire for the conditions around here), but I think the Nevegal 2.1 is a little bigger. Too bad Panaracer doesn't make the Fire in about a 2.2 size!

I think a few more rides and I'll be able to tell for sure if I made the right tire choice. I especially want to see how that Nevegal 2.35 works as a front tire on the SS.

 

[Homebrew]

Shiggy, what do you mean the braking suffers when the Nevegal is reversed from its recommended direction?

The center knobs are ramped for lower rolling resistance when rotating in the recommended direction. This direction also gives a sharp edge knob on the other side for more bite when braking. If you turn it around, you the ramped edge doesn't have as much traction for braking but might offer a bit more bite while climbing.

 

[shiggy]

The center knobs are ramped for lower rolling resistance when rotating in the recommended direction. This direction also gives a sharp edge knob on the other side for more bite when braking. If you turn it around, you the ramped edge doesn't have as much traction for braking but might offer a bit more bite while climbing.

Kor-rect-a-mun-go [nm]

 

[shiggy]

What's the difference between the 2.0 Lite and the 2.1 Stick-E?

The Nevegal Lite DTC 1.95 has dual rubber compound (DTC) with the faster rolling, longer wearing LR3 Pro in the center and the grippier, faster wearing Stick-E on the edges (cornering tread). It also has a lighter, higher tpi, more supple casing.

 

[CyclingJunkie]

trailing edge

I had no idea that the trailing edge of a knob affected braking. I thought it was the leading edge that affected climbing AND braking. Very interesting.

The center knobs are ramped for lower rolling resistance when rotating in the recommended direction. This direction also gives a sharp edge knob on the other side for more bite when braking. If you turn it around, you the ramped edge doesn't have as much traction for braking but might offer a bit more bite while climbing.

 

[shiggy]

I had no idea that the trailing edge of a knob affected braking. I thought it was the leading edge that affected climbing AND braking. Very interesting.

Just think about it for a moment. The light will turn on.