Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
11 is one louder than 10
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well,

I'm finding the Bulldog UST's are not cutting it for me. I like to really lean into corners, and the knobs on the 2.1's end too soon for me. So, on to new tires. Down to these three. Midwest riding, hardpack, small rocks and roots. Some leaves etc. Dry to loamy conditions, with several fun filled sand pits in most of my local trails. So, volume helps. Price matters, but isn't huge.

1. Spider - Best volume, tread looks decent and better coverage in the corners. Downside - 2.1's I previously had and returned were 750 grams, not the 700 as advertised. Going to run about 80 bucks for the set from what I can gather.

2. Serac - I've used them in the past in a Non-UST. Roll nice, but they wore down rather quickly I found. Can be found for 50 bucks a set.

3. Weirwolf - Looks like as a front tire it would grip, grip, and grip some more in the corners. I've never ridden them. Not sure on the volume on these vs. the Spiders. Looks like they would be awesome in tight singletrack corners, but not sure if they will bury themself in the sand. About 80 a set.

I'm also not opposed to using a separate front and rear tire, though I always want my front to have equal or more volume than the rear. I considered a Serac Rear, Weirwolf front combo.

Opinions?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
Get the Spider Tubeless. Do not worry about the weight. Kick butt. Take names. They just work!
Try the Spider front/Bulldog rear in the dry.

Serac: never ridden them. IRCs tend to be lower volume.

Weirwolf: great on the soft-stuff. Sketchy on hardpack - even in a straight line. The 2.5 is one the best sand tires I have used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
I second the spiders

I've got a handful of rides in Midwest conditions that you describe with the 2.1 UST Spiders front and rear and they perform really good. The cornering grip in loose and hardpack is great. They're fairly predictable at the break point.

The weight hasn't been a factor. Previously, I ran a tubed setup of equivalent weight.

Installation of the spider was as easy or easier than the tubed tires I have used
 

·
Do It Yourself
Joined
·
5,720 Posts
I took one look at the Bulldog and said no thanks. That tire is seriously lacking any kind of side knobs. I'm pretty happy with the Spiders. They seem to do pretty well all around. You might look at the 2.3 Spider though. My buddy has a set of 2.3s that weigh about the same as my 2.1s and they are very meaty. The non-UST Weirwolf 2.3 on another buddy's bike look on the smaller size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,850 Posts
I say go for the Spiders as well. Just an excellent tire all around. Outsatanding traction in many conditions and to top it off its one of the easiest tires to mount of any kind. The 2.1's are actually about 2.2 at the knobs so they run a bit bigger than claimed. The 2.3's actually run closer to 2.2 as well but the casing and the knobs have the same width. I'd say just go straight to the 2.3's.
I've never tried the weirwolves but I have used the Serracs. I lot of people seem to like them but I feel its one of the worst tires I've ever tried. It seems to be so all around it just doesn't work right on anything and it has by far the worst UST bead design EVER. They are probably one of the reasons some people have been turned away from UST. They are nearly impossible to mount and I found the bead tended to burp easily or downright slip off. Oh and by impossible to mount I really mean these things are a first class pain in the ass. Expect to break a few tire levers and hope you never need to do a trailside repair. They are pretty low volume. I measured my 1.95's to be almost 1.8's and the 2.1 looks pretty thin too. IMHO the UST version at least is a terrible tire. Did I mention I don't like serracs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Green Giant said:
1. Spider - Best volume, tread looks decent and better coverage in the corners. Downside - 2.1's I previously had and returned were 750 grams, not the 700 as advertised. Going to run about 80 bucks for the set from what I can gather.

Opinions?
I'm pretty happy with the Spiders.

You can get them for about $60 a set, try greenfishsports.com -

http://www.greenfishsports.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=227
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
jeffro said:
I've got a handful of rides in Midwest conditions that you describe with the 2.1 UST Spiders front and rear and they perform really good. The cornering grip in loose and hardpack is great. They're fairly predictable at the break point.

The weight hasn't been a factor. Previously, I ran a tubed setup of equivalent weight.

Installation of the spider was as easy or easier than the tubed tires I have used
Third for the Spiders. Also, Shiggy is spot on about the Weirwolfs.l They're one of my favorite front tires in the soft stuff.. They're pretty squirrley on hardpack, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
shiggy said:
Get the Spider Tubeless. Do not worry about the weight. Kick butt. Take names. They just work!
Try the Spider front/Bulldog rear in the dry.

Serac: never ridden them. IRCs tend to be lower volume.

Weirwolf: great on the soft-stuff. Sketchy on hardpack - even in a straight line. The 2.5 is one the best sand tires I have used.
I live on the east coast with all of the many changes of terrrane from rocks , roots, mud , ect..
Do you think the Spiders would work well for me? I'm currently running Maxxis High Rollers on Mavic 819 rims. I can make them work some of the times, but other times they just don't hook up over the difficult stuff. Any advice on what UST to use for my conditions? I like the idea of the tire to be lite as possible with some knobs for the wet stuff.

Any help would be appreciated,

upontwo
 

·
Klydesdale
Joined
·
305 Posts
I'll let you know about the Spiders UST 2.1s....

I plan to take my first ride with Spider UST 2.1s at Pontiac Lake today. I just got a set on Monday from Nashbar who had them for $19.99 apiece. I used coupon code cr201 to get 10% off that. For 36 bucks (plus shipping) I couldn't pass them up

I was thinking about the Bulldogs too, until I got a good look at them. The Spiders have far more substantial sideknobs which was what I was looking for over the Python USTs I have been using.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
How's the Spider stack up against the Schwalbe Big Jim UST? I am currently running the Big Jim and have been impressed (best UST so far for me; Weirwolf 2.1's were a bit narrow but fairly good traction, IRC Serac's weren't grippy and were very hard to install, Kenda Kinetics was too heavy for a trail tire (4+ hour rides with lots of climbing)). My Big Jim's are wearing out-should I get a pair of Spider's as a replacement? I ride in medium to loose conditions (semi-arid, volcanic soil area). Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
dawgcatching said:
How's the Spider stack up against the Schwalbe Big Jim UST? I am currently running the Big Jim and have been impressed (best UST so far for me; Weirwolf 2.1's were a bit narrow but fairly good traction, IRC Serac's weren't grippy and were very hard to install, Kenda Kinetics was too heavy for a trail tire (4+ hour rides with lots of climbing)). My Big Jim's are wearing out-should I get a pair of Spider's as a replacement? I ride in medium to loose conditions (semi-arid, volcanic soil area). Thanks!
I've never ridden Big Jim's so I can't compair them... The Spiders are working well for me and the conditions sound very similar. I'd buy them again... I might go 2.3 for the front this summer to get more float in the sand here as conditions dry out even more as the summer wears on....
 

·
Sublime Absurdity
Joined
·
741 Posts
So why aren't you Spider lovers posting reviews in the tire? Looking at the reviews, the average out of 5 reviews is 3.4 and some of the reviews point out some condemning issues in rocky terrain. Beyond the review, the tread looks strange to me...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
sodade said:
So why aren't you Spider lovers posting reviews in the tire? Looking at the reviews, the average out of 5 reviews is 3.4 and some of the reviews point out some condemning issues in rocky terrain. Beyond the review, the tread looks strange to me...
Check the Tubeless Tire reviews for the Spider UST. They're getting 4.13. That's a very good rating. Even the 3.4 isn't bad if you read the details. The 2 lowest rating reviews are for their performance in mud...at least one in England. They shed mud OK, but don't have the long knobs like real mud tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
I was recently torn between the spiders and Continetal Vertical pro 2.3 ust, Ended up getting the conti's due to the tread design and favorable reviews... Any of you have any time on the vertical pros?
My LBS is in the process of building me up a Mavic xm819 with hope bulbs.. I Cant wait, should be here next week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
Felpur said:
I was recently torn between the spiders and Continetal Vertical pro 2.3 ust, Ended up getting the conti's due to the tread design and favorable reviews... Any of you have any time on the vertical pros?
My LBS is in the process of building me up a Mavic xm819 with hope bulbs.. I Cant wait, should be here next week.
I haven't tired the UST version, but spent over a season riding on the Vert pro and protection, 2.3. They're really good tires. Decent on hardpack, even better in loose stuff...corner well.

The only issues I had were sidewalls tearing out and pinchflats. Prior to that, I had ridden without getting a pinchflat for 10 years. Riding at downieville, I got 2 pinchflats and tore out one sidewall in one run. The other issue, maybe really an issue, is that they're very skinny for a 2.3. They actually measure 2.1.
 

·
Sublime Absurdity
Joined
·
741 Posts
Blue Shorts said:
I haven't tired the UST version, but spent over a season riding on the Vert pro and protection, 2.3. They're really good tires. Decent on hardpack, even better in loose stuff...corner well.

The only issues I had were sidewalls tearing out and pinchflats. Prior to that, I had ridden without getting a pinchflat for 10 years. Riding at downieville, I got 2 pinchflats and tore out one sidewall in one run. The other issue, maybe really an issue, is that they're very skinny for a 2.3. They actually measure 2.1.
Why does everyone treat weak sidewalls as a minor issue? This is a huge freaking showstopper for a tire that a lot of people use because they are reccomended for use with Stan's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
Blue Shorts said:
I haven't tired the UST version, but spent over a season riding on the Vert pro and protection, 2.3. They're really good tires. Decent on hardpack, even better in loose stuff...corner well..
well thanks for the feedback....
 

·
Dude!
Joined
·
132 Posts
My last set of UST tires on my 819/CKs were Conti Explorer 2.1s and am now on the spider UST. Both are GREAT tires and with my limited time on the Spiders, I can say that from a traction standpoint, the Spiders are a bit better. I actually love my worn Contis for a more of a semi slick tire now. I use the Spiders for when I need more traction. They are a bit heavier than the Contis though. Either way they are both GREAT tires. The Spiders seemed to go on MUCH easier as well...no levers at all.
 
1 - 20 of 22 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