Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm thinking of getting Panaracer Fire XC Pro (2.1) for my 2004 Stumpjumper FSR Pro. I currently have the stock tires (Specialized Rollx Pro (2.0) Will the wider Panaracer's be nicer on my stumpjumper. I'm looking to have more control on my downhills and a little more grip on the uphills. Are these the tires for me. Do i need to get new tubes to fit them, or can i just use the tubes i've got on my old tires?
 

·
Specialized Rida
Joined
·
815 Posts
edray said:
I'm thinking of getting Panaracer Fire XC Pro (2.1) for my 2004 Stumpjumper FSR Pro. I currently have the stock tires (Specialized Rollx Pro (2.0) Will the wider Panaracer's be nicer on my stumpjumper. I'm looking to have more control on my downhills and a little more grip on the uphills. Are these the tires for me. Do i need to get new tubes to fit them, or can i just use the tubes i've got on my old tires?
Your old tubes should work just fine.

If you looking for control and climbing ability I would recommend the Kenda Nevegals. The ride really good and have great traction going up or down hills.

From persenal experiance I have riden both when I I used to have a Stumpjumper and my epic, but I love the way the nevegal feels. At the same time Panaracers are also good tires for climbing and downhilling if you decide not to go with the Nevegals
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
I have a pair of Panarcer Fire XC Pros, and pair of Roll X Pro Traction/Race tires. The Fire XC's are one of the slowest rolling tires I have used. They grip really well in sand, loose soil, or leaf covered ground. They tend to pack up in mud. I have never gotten a pinch flat even at really low pressure and using light weight tubes with them. I wouldn't buy these again due to how slow they roll.

The Roll X tires are so much faster. They have better grip on the hard packed soil and maybe a bit better grip over roots/rocks. They tend to pack up with mud a little less than the Fire XC's. Now the bad part, I cannot get as much traction in sand. They like to wash out on corners a lot easier. I wouldn't buy these again due to the poor sand/loose soil traction.

Another good combination of tires to consider would be Kenda Nevegal Stick-E front with Nevegal DTC rear. Or a pair of Hutchinson Spiders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Yea, i ride in the Jersey Shore and there is some sand on the trails. I think I'd like to try a different tire from the Roll x Pro so i think im going to go with the Panaracer's...theres a really good deal on them on pricepoint, 2 for 30 bucks. can't beat that. Maybe in the future i'll take a look at the Navegal's.
 

·
...
Joined
·
493 Posts
I ran the XC pros front and rear for quite a while. I've switched to running different (often 2.3") front tires with rounder profiles, but the Fire XC pro still makes an excelent rear tire for me. I also run the rear "backwards". To me it feels like it corners more predictably and rolls slightly better. Tires are a very personal thing: some people like a square profile, some people like them rounder. Fire XC pros are squareish. The price point deal is good. If you don't like running on in the front, you can always get another front tire and have a spare rear.
 
G

·
the wife currently runs Adrenaline Pro 2.1 front and Nevegal DTC 2.1 rear.

very good setup.

if you want a really good sand tire floatation is key IMO. best sand tires i have ridden were Kenda Cortez 2.4". very high volume and only 700g/ea
 

·
Team Blindspot
Joined
·
2,989 Posts
Speaking of tires for Sand

mechmann_mtb said:
the wife currently runs Adrenaline Pro 2.1 front and Nevegal DTC 2.1 rear.

very good setup.

if you want a really good sand tire floatation is key IMO. best sand tires i have ridden were Kenda Cortez 2.4". very high volume and only 700g/ea
Shiggy has mentioned that the 2.5 Weirwolf is the best tire he's ever used in sandy conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Another alternative are the panaracer smoke/dart combo which are about 35.00 per pair at performance most weeks. I have them on my Epic and they work just fine for the riding I do. (Nor-Cal-Auburn) I have the Fire XC pro on my single speed caues the red sidewall match my yellow singlespeed! They work just fine too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
is there much difference between a 1.95" tire and a 2.1" tire. (I'm trying to decide on a Nevegal size). If i have a wider tire will my bike feel beefier, and will i have more confidence?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
edray said:
is there much difference between a 1.95" tire and a 2.1" tire. (I'm trying to decide on a Nevegal size). If i have a wider tire will my bike feel beefier, and will i have more confidence?
There is a huge difference between the air volume of a 1.95" tire and a 2.1" tire. Look at Shiggy's tire specs here:

http://www.mtbtires.com/specs/kenda.html

The tubed Kenda 1.95's have a volume index of around 17 while the tubed kenda 2.1's have a volume index of 20 to 25.1. That is a 18% to 48% increase in air volume.

Since you live in an area with sandy conditions, the wider tire will give you a bigger footprint. Also, wider tires alow you to run lower tire pressures without pinch flats. This results in better traction and less bouncing around.

Yes your bike will feel more beefy and yes it should inspire more confidence as it will dull down the terrain some.
 
1 - 12 of 12 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