Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Lazy People Suck
Joined
·
771 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I may open a whole can of worms here, but I read the article and thought I would get your opinion on their conclusions on the tires and their testing procedures. Where do you most agree and disagree with their recommendations?

I was especially put off by their listing everything in pounds and ounces. Their rationale for it was one of the weakest explanations I have read in a while.
 

·
almost there!
Joined
·
341 Posts
MBA article...

I might sound like a cheap skate but can anyone out there who has the tire comparison chart from this article, can they scan it in and post it to this site?

I'll probably go out and buy the magazine tonight if I can find it tonight (I don't normally buy magazines but I'm told this one is worth it). Most cycling info you need is here already.

Please and thanks.

Adam
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
Fett said:
I may open a whole can of worms here, but I read the article and thought I would get your opinion on their conclusions on the tires and their testing procedures. Where do you most agree and disagree with their recommendations?

I was especially put off by their listing everything in pounds and ounces. Their rationale for it was one of the weakest explanations I have read in a while.
I have not seen it.

I do find it interesting the increased number of full tire articles they are running since my site has been up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
Fett said:
... I was especially put off by their listing everything in pounds and ounces. Their rationale for it was one of the weakest explanations I have read in a while.
Weight units: Did they pull out their old "we state the weight of complete bikes in pounds and the U.S. does not use the metric system" argument ignoring that the industry standard is grams? They have always been very provincial.

When MBA reviewed a set of Schwalbe tires and tubes they wrote that they really liked the tires but gave them a 2-star rating because the tiny plastic pressure gauges that are included with the tubes were not accurate (the 4 I have work fine).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Some good info but...

Unless you live in the California the test results don't mean jack! Tires that have a good reputation on the east coast finsihed near the bottom of the MBA list because those guys don't ever see mud. In the 15 or so pages of the tire section I think they use the word mud only once. Also those guys seem to think a 2.0 is a "large volume" tire? Whats up wit dat? In NC a good tire has to deal with mud at least SOME of the time and a 2.0 is a skinny ass tire! A DirtRag tire shoot out would be something worth reading!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,084 Posts
Rodales "Mountain Bike" just did an article on tires too.
- Interestingly enough they sent tires out to testers all over the place to try and get a better overall review of the tires which I liked, so they don't fall into the "they only test in So-Cal and never see mud" category.
I personally didn't agree with their ratings of some tires overall but then again who does?
So many tires, conditions, air pressure, etc. to give a difinitive yay or nay to tires imo.
It was a refreshing idea though....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Do a search for "MBA" and nothing short of 100% of the results returned will be negative. The American bike mags would do well to take some advice from or use as a model either: a) one of the finer skateboarding mags, who, after many more years than us, still manage to stay on top of their games in a market that changes faster than they can typically go to press; or b) one of Britain's finer mags, say MBUK, who pleases their advertisers, has a lot of fun, and writes about it, all the while recognizing that gear is not the only thing that should appear in a MtB magazine. My MBA subscription ran out quite a while ago, and there's not a chance in hell I'll replace it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,610 Posts
I actually picked up the issue last night and read a bit of the tire review. Guess what, the specialized tire was number 2 instead of number one, but was rated five stars in rolling resistance. Bottom line is that it was pretty much useless. They said the Python had no traction and the Nokian and Schwalbe tires were not that great. It seems they have a completely different impression of how tires should work compared to the rest of the world.
 

·
Two wheels are best
Joined
·
1,135 Posts
They did bill this tire test as an "XC" tire comparison. They got at least some of the good tires in the top 10...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
DM-SC said:
They did bill this tire test as an "XC" tire comparison. They got at least some of the good tires in the top 10...
MBA's XC tire list from last year excluded any tire with a stated size above 2.14" and as we know there are many "larger" tires that should/could be included.
 

·
almost there!
Joined
·
341 Posts
So in conclusion...

it sounds like I should not waste my money on the magazine.

I don't know what it says about the Pythons but from experience they're a good dry condition tire with plenty of traction in those conditions and a really low rolling resistance.

Thanks for the money saving advice.

Adam
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
My two cents

My concerns were that it appears to be based on So. Cal. riding terrain - so you have to take that into account. I didn't like the fact that they didn't really address wet conditions, perhaps that's because they don't want to suggest that it is OK to ride in wet conditions even though most us, if not all us, do it. With that said, I think there is useful information to at least compare different tires and make my own call. Unfortunately I don't have the money to try every tire out there and make a decision as to the best of the best completely on my own. I will say that I am currently riding the WTB Epic Wolf 2.1 both front and rear and felt their review was reasonable, if not right on. I was going to go back to Fire XC Pros once the WTBs are smoked, but I may lean toweards another brand when comparing spec's and their comments. Are they dead on for each review - unlikley, but the articale kept me busy for a while and I will refer to it for (better or worse) next time I open the ol' wallet.
 

·
mad aussie
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
I looked at the article, it wasnt bad, but these days I see more and more riders on tires bigger than 2.1. The guys and girls I ride with run 2.25 and up. 2.4 or even 2.5 is not uncommon. Of course we have a lot of sharp, loose rock and cactus in Arizona so that may account for some of the differences.
I would suggest talking to the riders locally who ride the trails you ride and see what they are using.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
I agree about the SO.CAL. thing MBA does their testing mostly in SO.CAL. I actually ride the same trails as they do and most of them are dry and loose. I' v spoken with the assistant editor several times( Jimmy Mac) while riding and let me tell you the people in that mag. are real riders like you and I. And even better they are really down to earth and cool as hell. :cool:
 
1 - 19 of 19 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