REVIEWS DEALS BIKESHOPS TRAILS

That's it, I'm changing from 2.1 Conti Explorer Supersonics to 2.35 Blue Groove??

1391 Views 11 Replies 5 Participants Last post by shiggy, Jul 27, 2004

SCHUMACHER

Discussion Starter · Jul 12, 2004

I've not had much experience using different bike tires. My past and current bikes always seemed to have fairly narrrow and fast rolling tires: 2.1's Bontrager ST2, IRC Serac XC, and currently Conti Explorer Supersonics.

I always thought that low rolling resistance was preferable over slower knobbies. Well, I rode my Blur for an hour yesterday with the Conti's and am actually thinking about a change. While the Supersonics seemed very light and fast, I noticed was front traction during turns had more drama than I wanted. Additionally, the rear tire in many cases would slide a lot.

So I got home wondering if getting something with more traction would help. I briefly read about the Blue Grooves and was thinking of making a change to 2.35 F and R. I ride Sierra Nevada trails -- a lot of dry high desert hardpack with rocks and some minor roots.

I don't race and am looking for a happy medium in tracktion and decent speed.

ALSO -- where is everyone buying their BG's? It seems everyone is selling them for $44/ea!! Thanks.

Save

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

coolhandluchs

· #2 · Jul 12, 2004

You might want to try the 2.1 BG's first. (They're closer to a 2.2 in acutal width) They're about 100 gr lighter apiece than the 2.35 (which are closer to a 2.4 in width, check to see if they'll fit on your bike), and shouldn't give up too much traction. I'm running the 2.35 Nevegals in CO (mainly sandy gravel over rocks & hardpack) and loving them, but thinking about switching to the narrower width and lighter weight. I think the 2.35 is overkill for my riding style. (Think nearsighted little old lady) Love the big volume though!

hammerheadbikes.com is selling BG and Nevegals for $50 a pair right now. Stock up!

Save

SCHUMACHER

Discussion Starter · #3 · Jul 12, 2004

coolhandluchs said:
You might want to try the 2.1 BG's first. (They're closer to a 2.2 in acutal width) They're about 100 gr lighter apiece than the 2.35 (which are closer to a 2.4 in width, check to see if they'll fit on your bike), and shouldn't give up too much traction. I'm running the 2.35 Nevegals in CO (mainly sandy gravel over rocks & hardpack) and loving them, but thinking about switching to the narrower width and lighter weight. I think the 2.35 is overkill for my riding style. (Think nearsighted little old lady) Love the big volume though!

hammerheadbikes.com is selling BG and Nevegals for $50 a pair right now. Stock up!

Nearsighted little old lady eh? Sounds like me too -- I've yet to wear my glasses! Wow, I didn't know the 2.35's were closer to 2.4 -- that might be an issue with the Blur rear clearance. Looks like I'll try the BG 2.1's instead

Thanks for the link -- great price!

Save

coolhandluchs

· #4 · Jul 12, 2004

SCHUMACHER said:
Nearsighted little old lady eh? Sounds like me too -- I've yet to wear my glasses! Wow, I didn't know the 2.35's were closer to 2.4 -- that might be an issue with the Blur rear clearance. Looks like I'll try the BG 2.1's instead

Yup. I ride a 5" travel bike, not because I'm good enough too, but because I can now keep up with people on 3" travel bikes and hardtails

SCHUMACHER said:
Thanks for the link -- great price!

It's the best price I've found so far. Hats off to Charles. I'm looking at a BG front/NVG rear 2.1 setup, as soon as I can sneak $50 away from my wife

Save

mward

· #5 · Jul 13, 2004

You might try conti vertical pros. Similar tread pattern, more grip, and fatter, but not superfat like these other tires you've mentioned. I run explorers on my race bike and love the grip, but the verticals have even more. However, since you live in NV, my recommendation may be bollocks, because we ride on completely different terrain.

Save

jrm

· #6 · Jul 13, 2004

I 2nd the 2.1

coolhandluchs said:
You might want to try the 2.1 BG's first. (They're closer to a 2.2 in acutal width) They're about 100 gr lighter apiece than the 2.35 (which are closer to a 2.4 in width, check to see if they'll fit on your bike), and shouldn't give up too much traction. I'm running the 2.35 Nevegals in CO (mainly sandy gravel over rocks & hardpack) and loving them, but thinking about switching to the narrower width and lighter weight. I think the 2.35 is overkill for my riding style. (Think nearsighted little old lady) Love the big volume though!

hammerheadbikes.com is selling BG and Nevegals for $50 a pair right now. Stock up!

the casings are larger then most 2.2's. Im using a 2.1 Nevin the back and a 2.3 fat albert or a 2.1 BG up front depending on the surface. IMO a 2.1will be plenty in the back but you may want a tire with a larger casing up front.

Save

shiggy

· #7 · Jul 15, 2004

SCHUMACHER said:
I've not had much experience using different bike tires. My past and current bikes always seemed to have fairly narrrow and fast rolling tires: 2.1's Bontrager ST2, IRC Serac XC, and currently Conti Explorer Supersonics.

I always thought that low rolling resistance was preferable over slower knobbies. Well, I rode my Blur for an hour yesterday with the Conti's and am actually thinking about a change. While the Supersonics seemed very light and fast, I noticed was front traction during turns had more drama than I wanted. Additionally, the rear tire in many cases would slide a lot.

So I got home wondering if getting something with more traction would help. I briefly read about the Blue Grooves and was thinking of making a change to 2.35 F and R. I ride Sierra Nevada trails -- a lot of dry high desert hardpack with rocks and some minor roots.

I don't race and am looking for a happy medium in tracktion and decent speed.

ALSO -- where is everyone buying their BG's? It seems everyone is selling them for $44/ea!! Thanks.

The BG 2.10 would probably be big enough for you. The casing is about 25% larger volume than the Explorers. I doubt that the 2.35 will fit in the rear of the Blur anyway. You could run the BG 2.35 front / 2.10 rear. I also like the Nokian NBX 2.3 for the conditions you ride.

Save

SCHUMACHER

Discussion Starter · #8 · Jul 15, 2004

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I'm going to test out the BG's and let you know what I think.

Save

SCHUMACHER

Discussion Starter · #9 · Jul 26, 2004

I managed to get in a few rides with the Blue Grooves this weekend. My impressions so far -- they are indeed GOOD tires but they do have some shortcomings.

I tested a 2.35 F and 2.10 R on my Blur. Recall that all the tires I've used have been fairly low profiles so the BG's would be my first knobbies. The 2.35/2.10 combo proved to be heavy, slow and ponderous on flats. And on ocassions when riding through loose soil/[hardpacked] top sand, the tires would loose control and almost washed out. However, downhill speed and stability was incredible. But downhill only cosists 1/3 of my typical ride. That said, I changed the F to the BG 2.10 and R to the Exp Super 2.10. This combo proved to be better. Lighter and faster than the 2.35, the BG 2.10 climbed well, rolled over rocks well, cornered well, braked well, dowhill well, and cruised well (once up to speed). However, I still felt it was a little heavy gave up too much pedaling efficiency -- it was hard for me to get it up to speed and keep a stable cadence on the flats. I guess they "roll fast" for a knobbie -- but this is my first knobbie!

All in all, I'm impressed but not convinced that I should stick with the BGs. And I really want to like them considering all the positive comments on MTBR! It's funny that upon testing these tires, MBAction magazine came out with a comparison test. I'm not going to fully give up on the BG's yet, but I do want to try the Nevegal Lites (1.95) based on the impressive MBA rating. I'll keep everyone updated again. Thanks.

See less See more

Save

shiggy

· #10 · Jul 27, 2004

SCHUMACHER said:
I managed to get in a few rides with the Blue Grooves this weekend. My impressions so far -- they are indeed GOOD tires but they do have some shortcomings.

I tested a 2.35 F and 2.10 R on my Blur. Recall that all the tires I've used have been fairly low profiles so the BG's would be my first knobbies. The 2.35/2.10 combo proved to be heavy, slow and ponderous on flats. And on ocassions when riding through loose soil/[hardpacked] top sand, the tires would loose control and almost washed out. However, downhill speed and stability was incredible. But downhill only cosists 1/3 of my typical ride. That said, I changed the F to the BG 2.10 and R to the Exp Super 2.10. This combo proved to be better. Lighter and faster than the 2.35, the BG 2.10 climbed well, rolled over rocks well, cornered well, braked well, dowhill well, and cruised well (once up to speed). However, I still felt it was a little heavy gave up too much pedaling efficiency -- it was hard for me to get it up to speed and keep a stable cadence on the flats. I guess they "roll fast" for a knobbie -- but this is my first knobbie!

All in all, I'm impressed but not convinced that I should stick with the BGs. And I really want to like them considering all the positive comments on MTBR! It's funny that upon testing these tires, MBAction magazine came out with a comparison test. I'm not going to fully give up on the BG's yet, but I do want to try the Nevegal Lites (1.95) based on the impressive MBA rating. I'll keep everyone updated again. Thanks.

The Stick-E rubber is not fast rolling on hard surfaces. I notice it on pavement/hardpack but not on softer/looser terrain.

Save

SCHUMACHER

Discussion Starter · #11 · Jul 27, 2004

Shiggy --

If that is the case, can I presume the (Nevegal Lite material) DTC will increase pedaling performance and is fast rolling? Can you explain to me the merits of DTC vs. a single compound like Stick-E? Finally, will I be giving up anything going with 1) DTC and 2) a smaller tire width?

Thanks for the help.

Save

shiggy

· #12 · Jul 27, 2004

SCHUMACHER said:
Shiggy --

If that is the case, can I presume the (Nevegal Lite material) DTC will increase pedaling performance and is fast rolling? Can you explain to me the merits of DTC vs. a single compound like Stick-E? Finally, will I be giving up anything going with 1) DTC and 2) a smaller tire width?

Thanks for the help.

The DTC tires have a harder faster rolling, longer wearing rubber in the center and the Stick-E rubber on the edges for better grip. The "Lites" also are a shallow tread design that is more suited to racing than general trail use.

I found that raising the air pressure 3-6 psi in the rear Nevegal 2.10 helped the rolling without too much (but noticeable) traction change in the rough.

Save

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 Contributors this Month