Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Autonomous
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
2009 Superlight DX build w/ Mavic 19mm Crossrides.

Yeah I know, ask 10 different people this question, and I'll get 10 different answers, but here it is:

Need new rubber on my SL, and want to run 2.3 up front and probably the same size rear. I ride in Northern California (Bay Area), mostly dry, very loose, very rocky (sharp ones!) conditions. Traction is my primary issue, and I'm willing to sacfrifice (some) weight there, but not rolling resistance. Good downhill handling is next, followed by resistance to slash flats by aforementiond sharp rocks.

Yeah I know....ya' can't have it all..but can I at least get close?

The stock Nevegals were just ok. Then tried Dart front/Smoke rear hated it. Now have WTB wolverine 2.2 fr/rr and they were so-so.

Thanks y'all

Glen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
I've always been a fan of the 2.35 Nevegal up front, with a 2.20 small block 8 out back. Gives great front end stability in the loose stuff, but still rolls well with the faster SB8 out back. Climbing traction for me is excellent unless there's peanut butter mud.

The SB8 does not seem to have super tough sidewalls, but I've not ripped one open on the rocks and ledges out here.... yet. It's also a pretty damn light tire. I'm curious what front tire you prefer over the Nevegal. Is there something with a similar traction to rolling resistance ratio?
 

·
Tough Guy Extraordinaire
Joined
·
601 Posts
I run a Panaracer Fire up front and a conti mountain king in the rear. Seems to do pretty well for me, alhtough living in the northeast I deal with more mud than you may.

I did run nevegals in the reas before and I think the king is a huge step up.
 

·
Live to Ride!
Joined
·
43 Posts
Loving the WTB Prowler in 2.3 for the rear, and the 2.5 of the same in the front. Run the front down to 32psi, and the SL will corner in the dirt like a.... mufler-plucker. Been running these over the last half of last season, and they are nice and sticky, but wear faster than others. Most impressed on the the slickrock trail in Moab last fall. Never slipped.

Here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,056 Posts
I would try something from WTB or Specialized with their tubeless ready but thinner than UST casings. Lighter, tougher, and tubelss-ready. I ride in moist, rocky conditions, and a lot of people run Specialized Purgatory/Captain tires around here. Also a lot of Mountain Kings/Prowlers, but I ripped my Prowler XT Race pretty quickly. My next tires will be Specialized. Good luck!
 

·
Autonomous
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
jd1072 said:
I've always been a fan of the 2.35 Nevegal up front, with a 2.20 small block 8 out back. Gives great front end stability in the loose stuff, but still rolls well with the faster SB8 out back. Climbing traction for me is excellent unless there's peanut butter mud.

The SB8 does not seem to have super tough sidewalls, but I've not ripped one open on the rocks and ledges out here.... yet. It's also a pretty damn light tire. I'm curious what front tire you prefer over the Nevegal. Is there something with a similar traction to rolling resistance ratio?
Truth be told, cos' the Nevagals were original equipment on my SL, and the SL is my 1st full suspension bike, I didn't have anything to compare them to. When they finally wore down, I tried the Dart/Smoke combo and disliked it immediately...too "twitchy". Now that my WTB wolverines ae worn, I'm asking for recommendations. Who knows, might go back to Nevegals. Are you riding a Superlight?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,047 Posts
glenj said:
Thanks XLE! Any issues fitting a 2.5 on the front of your SL? Santa Cruz sez 2.3 is the max size, but if I can go a bit bigger I might. Also, my Mavic Crossride Disc is 19mm wide...any issues there?
i see no reason you couldnt run a 2,5 on the front if it will fit in the fork.
 

·
Autonomous
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
17 July 2010
I ended up with the 2010 WTB Mutano (the new version, not to be confused with Mutano Raptors). 2.4 up front and 2.2 rear. Went with the "Inner Peace" added protection. I can suffer with the extra bit of weight. Running tubes for now, thought that may change.
They are just fine for ordinary xc riding, BUT when I encountered a gnarly-uphill-singletrack rock garden (with lots of sharp loose stuff) well...that is where they really shine! Un-freakin believable! Climbs like a goat, incredible traction and not a slice or puncture in sight. Did I mention the sides of said trail were a mass of thorny bushes? No problema amigo...good stuff WTB!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
What do the TCS Mutano's Weigh?

glenj said:
17 July 2010
I ended up with the 2010 WTB Mutano (the new version, not to be confused with Mutano Raptors). 2.4 up front and 2.2 rear. Went with the "Inner Peace" added protection. I can suffer with the extra bit of weight. Running tubes for now, thought that may change.
They are just fine for ordinary xc riding, BUT when I encountered a gnarly-uphill-singletrack rock garden (with lots of sharp loose stuff) well...that is where they really shine! Un-freakin believable! Climbs like a goat, incredible traction and not a slice or puncture in sight. Did I mention the sides of said trail were a mass of thorny bushes? No problema amigo...good stuff WTB!
Hey Glenj,
Did you by chance weigh the 2.4/2.2 TCS Mutanos? I was looking at the weights on the WTB site and they seem whacky. Is the 2.2 TCS only 10g heavier than the non TCS? Is that because the 2.2 TCS doesn't have the inner peace sidewalls? Just wondering if anyone knows the answer or has actual weights.

Thanks!

---Details from WTB's Site---
SIZE GMS LEVEL WEIGHT DETAILS
2.2 52/52 TCS 740g ust aramid bead | dual dna rubber | lightweight casing
2.2 52/52 RACE 730g aramid bead | dna rubber | lightweight casing
2.4 54/54 RACE 600g aramid bead | dna rubber | lightweight casing
2.4 54/54 AM TCS 750g ust aramid bead | dual dna rubber | lightweight casing with inner peace
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
I've been perfectly happy with the stock Nevegals other than the weight. I had planned on changing them out for some Conti Race Kings almost immediatly, but I rode the Nevegals and was impressed with their grip so they're going to stay on until they're worn out. . . . which should be in a month or two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
I run Maxxis Advantage 2.1 UST both front and rear. They are so-called "high volume" tyres, which gives better cushioning (and true to the 2.1 sizing lable) But I found them a tad slow to acelerate on hard pack but great on other stuff from loose to mud (but not goop) I am benchmarking them against my previous High Roller 2.1 UST's. Which I found excellent in all conditions. Mind you I am not a hard rider and I will go back to the HR once my Advantage wear out.
 
1 - 18 of 18 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