Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
It depends...

What type of terrain you ride on I would guess.

I loved the Roll X's in So Cal on dry hard pack and some loose stuff.

I have the Fire XC now and don't like them as well. I'm all over the place trying to turn on loose descents. On the positive, they are fairly light and cheap. About 1/2 the price of the Roll X and they come with groovy red sidewalls if you're into that. Mud - forget about it. I never tried the Roll X's in mud so can't compare.

For what it's worth, everyone else I've talked to thats tried both think I'm full of shyte.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,994 Posts
I road the kevlar bead Fire 2.1 XC pros forever

Stevebiker said:
Anybody used both? I'm looking for a comparision between the two. I've been riding the Fire's for ever. MBA sez the Roll's are better. Is that so??
I thought I'd never find anything better, then I switched to Hutchinson elite golds which stick nearly as well and roll way faster but are very hard to mount or change. For my next set of tires I'm going to try the Spec. Roll X Pros.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Specialized Roll X Pros are dogs

Stevebiker said:
Anybody used both? I'm looking for a comparision between the two. I've been riding the Fire's for ever. MBA sez the Roll's are better. Is that so??
Never tried the other tire, but the Roll X Pros are a very very slow rolling tire.......
Not just me saying that, but also several tests conducted by a German mountain bike magazine that showed the Roll X Pros to be much slower (sucked up more watts>
Very high rolling resistance compared to other tires.
Don't believe what you read in magazines that have Specialized as one of their chief advertisers.
That they rated this tire as one of the best is laughable. That Specialzed promotes this tire as a fast rolling tire is almost beyond belief since just the opposite is true.

The Roll X Pro would be my last choice.........BTW, I still have two in my basement, only used for about 200 miles. I removed them from my new 2003 Stumpjumper and will only remount them to sell an old Rockhopper I have.
They should rename them the Slow-X Pros
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
I have used both for several years on east coast trails (more than any other tires I've used), and liked them a lot. I know Chester posted a note about some test results he read, but I perceived exactly the opposite to be true on the trail. I thought the Spec'd were very quick relative to other similar tires. Personally, I thought the Fires cornered a little better and climbed a little better, the Specialized handled great and didn't feel heavy like some of the other brands I've tried. But that's just my opinion...

My favorite thing about both these tires was they performed very well at low pressure (34lbs front 37rear) for a tubed tire and I was able to ride them well at the same pressure that I now ride tubless. I've since switched to Continental tubless tires, and they're working well for me.

There are lots of great tires out there these days, and lots of function specific ones as well, so check out what other good riders are using on your local trails and get their recommendations -- you'll do much better with that than on a web bulletin board....

I think I recall reading somewhere that Fire's were produced in 2 different countries, the knobs peeled off the tires from one of the plants. Probably can do a search on the boards to check before you pick up another set of them....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Chester said:
Never tried the other tire, but the Roll X Pros are a very very slow rolling tire.......
Not just me saying that, but also several tests conducted by a German mountain bike magazine that showed the Roll X Pros to be much slower (sucked up more watts>
Very high rolling resistance compared to other tires.
Don't believe what you read in magazines that have Specialized as one of their chief advertisers.
That they rated this tire as one of the best is laughable. That Specialzed promotes this tire as a fast rolling tire is almost beyond belief since just the opposite is true.

The Roll X Pro would be my last choice.........BTW, I still have two in my basement, only used for about 200 miles. I removed them from my new 2003 Stumpjumper and will only remount them to sell an old Rockhopper I have.
They should rename them the Slow-X Pros
They seem to like them at the LBS, but Specialized is their main product line. I did hear though that the tires were redesigned this last year??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Before I got my '04 Stumpy, I rode Fire XC's for 2 years. When I got the stumpy, it came with Roll X's, so I decided to leave the Roll X's on because MBA gave them such high praise. I thought the Roll X really sucked. I ride mostly on hardpack with some sections of deep silt and sand. They did OK on the hardpack, but once I hit the sand/silt areas, the bike wondered all over the place. I never had that problem with the Fire XC's. The Roll X's also didn't hook up as well on very steep climbs. I made 1 ride on the Roll X, then switched back to the Fire XC's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Rode the fire xc's for about 1 season. Started noticing that they would slip out way more than normal on wet stuff. Also the cornering knobs are too high IMO. Causes me to wash out more than other tires.
Tried the Rollxpros and liked them better than the fire xc's.
This is on mainly wet, rooty, new england style stuff.
 

·
I already rode that
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
I have yet to try the Roll X's since I'm still using Fireroad XC's. Whenever I get around to fixing my brakes I'll toss on the Roll's since I did buy them recently and next ride I'll see how they hook up.

I dont think some ppl play with tire pressure enough too as that does play a part in some charactoristics of the tire. I know spec bighit pro tires got bad reviews but I like those tires over the xc pro's for grip rolling resistance sucks of course but what do you expect for a 2.5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Your fastest are still dogs

shabbasuraj said:
My Roll X Pro's are the fastest tires I have had, compared to any IRC or WTB I have tried... (Can't remember the models, exactly... sorry..)

Not good in mud, but in the dry, they are very fast...

my 0.02...
Sorry, but your "anecdotal" evidence is just not valid......because all of your tires may have been "dogs"..... In other words, you may well have never ridden a fast tire so the Roll X Pros may have seemed "fast" to you, but that doesn't make them fast rolling....

These issues have been discussed at length on other boards.. And even though the link I am giving you below comes from the Weight board, the issue in the thread is about "rolling resistance" and the fast rolling, or slow rolling nature of the Roll X Pros.........
And I can tell you they are SLOW.........SLOW........compared to a truely fast tire and even SLOW compared to other tires with equal grip. They are plain and simple a SLOW tire for what they do. Additionally this opinion and personal testing is backed up by some of the best scientific testing done on mtn biking tires by a source that is not beholden to Specialized for their advertising revenues...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?postid=213399#poststop

Take a look at where the Roll-X Pros come in. They are sucking power and speed away from your performance with every revolution as you go around a cross country course. A typical set of Roll X Pros could easily cost you 2 minutes over a one hour course compared to a good set of tires..(not even the fastest ones). A rider 2 minutes ahead on a loop is usually completely out of site and around a few turns, compared to the Roll X rider puffing way way behind.... 2 minutes at 15 mph is half a mile behind after one hour.
Oh yeah.........Roll X Pros.......real fast
 

·
Get out of town!
Joined
·
1,442 Posts
All I can say is that I have Fire XC Pro's on my Enduro and I can't see a reason to swap them out. These tires hang around and do their job for quite a while. They are a very good performing tire overall, and unless you are looking to fulfill a specific niche they are hard to beat. I threw the stock tires that came on my Enduro away (they weren't roll x pros) because they rolled SO SLOW. Anyone who has the stock specilalized pro tires knows what I mean I'm sure....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Chester said:
Sorry, but your "anecdotal" evidence is just not valid......because all of your tires may have been "dogs"..... In other words, you may well have never ridden a fast tire so the Roll X Pros may have seemed "fast" to you, but that doesn't make them fast rolling....

These issues have been discussed at length on other boards.. And even though the link I am giving you below comes from the Weight board, the issue in the thread is about "rolling resistance" and the fast rolling, or slow rolling nature of the Roll X Pros.........
And I can tell you they are SLOW.........SLOW........compared to a truely fast tire and even SLOW compared to other tires with equal grip. They are plain and simple a SLOW tire for what they do. Additionally this opinion and personal testing is backed up by some of the best scientific testing done on mtn biking tires by a source that is not beholden to Specialized for their advertising revenues...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?postid=213399#poststop

Take a look at where the Roll-X Pros come in. They are sucking power and speed away from your performance with every revolution as you go around a cross country course. A typical set of Roll X Pros could easily cost you 2 minutes over a one hour course compared to a good set of tires..(not even the fastest ones). A rider 2 minutes ahead on a loop is usually completely out of site and around a few turns, compared to the Roll X rider puffing way way behind.... 2 minutes at 15 mph is half a mile behind after one hour.
Oh yeah.........Roll X Pros.......real fast
It is all relative. Period. 2 minutes/hour... ??? There are so many other factors that come into play in an hour. Sorry you are selling and I am not buying...

Fact is like many things on our bikes, i.e. lighter parts here, 'faster tire there', red vs. blue colour, my point was merely trying to suggest that trying to figure out what is 'faster' is at many times pointless...(same can be said for weight/lighter items...)If both are labelled as fast, and one is on sale, then frig, maybe that is the one I may be going with...

SO my Roll-X Pro's are faster than any tire I have had in the past, ... And yes I have ridden some of these 'faster' rolling tires, and personally was never happy with their overall performance...

Issues such as weight reduction are sometimes pointless, as if getting that .5 gram seatpost collar will make a difference over an hour long race... How about the ol' method of training harder to get faster, as opposed to laying cash for the lightest/newest carbon fiber thingy..(If it cost more than a dollar a gram then it probably ain't worth it...)

This thread is dead.

PS: What is up with linking to threads with foreign language scans??? Popular thing to do in the MTB world... dahhhhhhhhhhh.........

edit spelling
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Man, it's so easy to get overly analytical about this stuff. If someone says that a tire you've been happy with for years is SLOW then you'll probably feel like you're dragging a boat anchor on your next ride. While there is undoubtedly much merit in formulas and graphs on rolling resistance, the power of suggestion can be much stronger than the influence of a few grams of rotational weight. As previously stated, bike handling and confidence in the saddle can, at times, far outweigh the benefits of a "faster rolling tire".
 

·
cask conditioned
Joined
·
625 Posts
Chester said:
Sorry, but your "anecdotal" evidence is just not valid......because all of your tires may have been "dogs"..... In other words, you may well have never ridden a fast tire so the Roll X Pros may have seemed "fast" to you, but that doesn't make them fast rolling....

These issues have been discussed at length on other boards.. And even though the link I am giving you below comes from the Weight board, the issue in the thread is about "rolling resistance" and the fast rolling, or slow rolling nature of the Roll X Pros.........
And I can tell you they are SLOW.........SLOW........compared to a truely fast tire and even SLOW compared to other tires with equal grip. They are plain and simple a SLOW tire for what they do. Additionally this opinion and personal testing is backed up by some of the best scientific testing done on mtn biking tires by a source that is not beholden to Specialized for their advertising revenues...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?postid=213399#poststop

Take a look at where the Roll-X Pros come in. They are sucking power and speed away from your performance with every revolution as you go around a cross country course. A typical set of Roll X Pros could easily cost you 2 minutes over a one hour course compared to a good set of tires..(not even the fastest ones). A rider 2 minutes ahead on a loop is usually completely out of site and around a few turns, compared to the Roll X rider puffing way way behind.... 2 minutes at 15 mph is half a mile behind after one hour.
Oh yeah.........Roll X Pros.......real fast
I don't recall anyone asking about racing tires. I wouldn't run many of those lesser rolling resistant tires on most of my trails and, at the same time, you'd be an idiot to race on Fire XC's or Roll X Pro's. They are both excellent all around tires, albeit they wear quickly. I've had more fun riding my big 720g IRC Trailbears, which roll pretty good btw, than I have zipping along on Pythons. I just switched to Roll X's and they just feel average to me, nothing 'wow' about them. My friend put on some 580g Specialized Adrenaline 2.0's and absolutely loves them. He seems to climb well with them and rides freeride trails on them too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
The weight of the Roll-X Pros is of little concern to me

ChipAllen said:
Man, it's so easy to get overly analytical about this stuff. If someone says that a tire you've been happy with for years is SLOW then you'll probably feel like you're dragging a boat anchor on your next ride. While there is undoubtedly much merit in formulas and graphs on rolling resistance, the power of suggestion can be much stronger than the influence of a few grams of rotational weight. As previously stated, bike handling and confidence in the saddle can, at times, far outweigh the benefits of a "faster rolling tire".
Just a note. Many of the replies to my post about the Roll X Pros seem to think I was some how concerned about extra weight or extra "rotational" weight.
The reason why I feel the Roll X Pros are dogs has nothing to do with "rotational" weight which I think is a highly over rated subject........meaning normal weight and rotational weight make relatively little difference between the two when doing a typical cross country course. For the most part, a ounce is a ounce, unless constantly accelerating. The "rotational" aspect is a very over rated concern.
On the other hand, rolling resistance is a major concern if one is really trying to get over a finish line quicker or make a better time. If you are just out having a fun recreational ride, then I wouldn't be concerned that much about either a few grams or extra rolling resistance.

The rolling resistance is important in this way. After finding two tires that both give you sufficient grip for your "confidence" and for the particular course, then if the cost is OK, you should choose the tire with the fastest rolling resistance if that is important to you.
In this category, the Roll X Pros, according to the best tests available are simply a slower tire compared to others available.
They simply suck up watts with every rotation.......up hills, down hills, on the flats.
Think about it this way..........If a pair of them sucks up an extra 10 watts (and they do) and you as a rider can only put out a steady 250 watts over a 1 hour course, then you have just given up 4% or your power. No other part on your bike, light or heavy.....XTR vs LX etc will ever suck up that many watts of power. Tires are simply the most important part of your bike in terms of performance..........with the following exception.
If the course is so technical and demanding, that all your concentration needs to be on the shock and/or grip of the tires. Few typical cross country courses are so technical that shocks and super grippy tires outweigh the rolling resistance characteristics of the tires...... But some are.......so don't come back and tell me about some super muddey, rooty, rocky example where without super agressive tread, you are crashing every 100 feet.
Also, when talking about rolling resistance, I am not trying to compare the Roll X Pros to some tires like the Conti Supersonic Twisters with just little nubs of bumps on the tire.
There are some tires mentioned in this thread which I believe will save considerable watts compared to Roll X Pros and still deliver the needed grip.
In conclusion, I can only say that rolling resistance is perhaps the most underrated performance factor in mountain bike performance. Under most conditions it is has a far greater impact than weight. I'd ride a bike that was 2.5 to 5 pounds heavier with good tires rather than a lighter bike with Roll X Pros.....knowing that I would still come out better at the end of a one hour loop.
I put more faith in the testing and in the stop watch than in some subjective opinion that a certain tire "seems" to roll fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Chester - What I said wasn't necessarily meant as a criticism or was I trying to find fault with any of your data. I was just saying that we all(myself included) tend to psych ourselves out sometimes with all the facts and figures that are floating around out there.
 

·
aka Taprider
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
1 - 20 of 26 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