Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Short-Change-Hero
Joined
·
6,534 Posts
I have a set of the 27.5 versions. They're a true 2.6, about 850 grams.

Also they're round ish so you want 35mm rims, minimum.
Good to know. Previously had some issues when the G2.0 versions first came out and sizing of the molds was off. Grabbed a 2.35" and ended up being more like 2.2" at largest. Vittoria was aware and replaced for me easily and without issue.
 

·
Hitching a ride
Joined
·
3,193 Posts
When I first got them I was unhappy because the knobs are .5mm shorter than the 2.35 version and I felt gypped. But I had to eventually realize that these are XC tires, and they are very good at that. The large footprint makes up for the shorter knobs and grip is very good. Rolling resistance is very low. I used these at Oak Mountain state park in AL one day when the trails were wet and greasy (when are they not at that place? lol) and had no trouble keeping up with my riding buddies. I started at 18/20 but kept dropping the air pressure until I was at like 13 for the front and 15 in the rear. In the dry they are grippy (for an xc tire) and fast.

Eventually I took them off because my superlight xc wheelset is only 30mm and that was holding them back a bit. I'm caring less about rolling resistance these days so I'm not sure if I'll build a superlight 35mm wheelset for them or sell them. The xc tires are a lot of fun but we have a ton of rocks around here and I can't trust them for all day riding, and I like more of a burly tire for bombing descents on my trail bike. True, I've never gotten a flat....but I can't trust them. Maybe I should. But no.

I still run the 2.35 on my xc 29er.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Eventually I took them off because my superlight xc wheelset is only 30mm and that was holding them back a bit. I'm caring less about rolling resistance these days so I'm not sure if I'll build a superlight 35mm wheelset for them or sell them. The xc tires are a lot of fun but we have a ton of rocks around here and I can't trust them for all day riding, and I like more of a burly tire for bombing descents on my trail bike. True, I've never gotten a flat....but I can't trust them. Maybe I should. But no.

I still run the 2.35 on my xc 29er.
Do you think they can be used on 40mm rims? I have Onza Canis 2.85 on those rims, but I have problems with tubeless setup due to tire not properly gripping to rim bead on DT Swiss rims, so I would like to try them.

Many thanks in advance,
 

·
Live Free & Ride
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Curious about the new Agarro in 2.6
It's about 100 grams heavier than the Barzo but looks pretty good...

borrowing the best traits from the popular Martello, Barzo, and Gato models, the Agarro utilizes proven technologies from both the Enduro and XC categories. This combination of performance is ideal for the Trail category, as it provides predictable grip and efficiency in a mix of conditions.

https://www.vittoria.com/us/agarro-enduro-and-trail.html


:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
Curious about the new Agarro in 2.6
It's about 100 grams heavier than the Barzo but looks pretty good...

borrowing the best traits from the popular Martello, Barzo, and Gato models, the Agarro utilizes proven technologies from both the Enduro and XC categories. This combination of performance is ideal for the Trail category, as it provides predictable grip and efficiency in a mix of conditions.

https://www.vittoria.com/us/agarro-enduro-and-trail.html


I am thinking Aggaro front, Barzo rear

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,132 Posts
Does anyone have an update on these? Are they of equivalent height & width to the Mezcal 2.6? I'd like to pair it with a Mezcal 2.6 on the rear with 35mm internal width rims. How is the cornering traction compared to the Mezcal?

I was looking at the Agarro, but its true size looks to be more like a 2.4 or 2.5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
The barzo 2.6 is as wide as a mezcal. Lokks like they have the same casing. Traction is great, only used it on the front though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
I've run both the Barzo (F and R) and Mezcal (R only) in 29x2.6. They would work well as a pair - similar in sizing, as Novaterra pointed out, and the Mezcal 2.6 is a great rear tire if you are looking for high volume. One thing that is super critical, IMO, is getting tire pressure dialed. Experiment with various pressures to see what works for you. I found that the Mezcal 2.6 had massively more grip than the smaller Mezcal versions, likely due to the fact that the entire tread pattern (including knob size/spacing) has been scaled up. I found that lower pressure really made the 2.6 Mezcal come alive, though you have to be careful about rim strikes.... YMMV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
I've run both the Barzo (F and R) and Mezcal (R only) in 29x2.6. They would work well as a pair - similar in sizing, as Novaterra pointed out, and the Mezcal 2.6 is a great rear tire if you are looking for high volume. One thing that is super critical, IMO, is getting tire pressure dialed. Experiment with various pressures to see what works for you. I found that the Mezcal 2.6 had massively more grip than the smaller Mezcal versions, likely due to the fact that the entire tread pattern (including knob size/spacing) has been scaled up. I found that lower pressure really made the 2.6 Mezcal come alive, though you have to be careful about rim strikes.... YMMV
How would you compare these to the 2.6 Agarro? How was the 2.6 Barzo on the front vs 2.35?

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
How would you compare these to the 2.6 Agarro? How was the 2.6 Barzo on the front vs 2.35?

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk
OK, this is purely my personal opinion here... I think the 2.6 Agarro is a very dialed tire. Everything just works well together: casing, tread, grip, rolling, wear, durability...

I personally prefer the 2.35 Barzo to the 2.6 Barzo, but again, it's just what works for me on my XC rig. I ride the 2.35 Barzo all the time and love it. On my trail bike, it's Agarro all the way. The 2.6 Barzo is lighter than the 2.6 Agarro, but it also doesn't support hard cornering in the same way at low pressures (thinner sidewalls).

In terms of rolling speed, I don't find the Agarro slower in any way than the Barzo, at least in the real world on actual trails. It's heavier, but rides so fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
OK, this is purely my personal opinion here... I think the 2.6 Agarro is a very dialed tire. Everything just works well together: casing, tread, grip, rolling, wear, durability...

I personally prefer the 2.35 Barzo to the 2.6 Barzo, but again, it's just what works for me on my XC rig. I ride the 2.35 Barzo all the time and love it. On my trail bike, it's Agarro all the way. The 2.6 Barzo is lighter than the 2.6 Agarro, but it also doesn't support hard cornering in the same way at low pressures (thinner sidewalls).

In terms of rolling speed, I don't find the Agarro slower in any way than the Barzo, at least in the real world on actual trails. It's heavier, but rides so fast.
Do you run Agarro F/R? If not, what combo do you recommend for trails that are slightly more technical than your average XC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Do you run Agarro F/R? If not, what combo do you recommend for trails that are slightly more technical than your average XC.
I run Agarro 2.6 F/R for the stuff I ride most often, which is East Coast chunky, steep up/down technical, but not loose high speed. The grip and durability is great for what/how I ride. For higher-speed longer descents, especially with loose surfaces, I would run a more aggressive front tire with larger knobs (2.5 DHF or similar) and keep the Agarro in the rear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I run Agarro 2.6 F/R for the stuff I ride most often, which is East Coast chunky, steep up/down technical, but not loose high speed. The grip and durability is great for what/how I ride. For higher-speed longer descents, especially with loose surfaces, I would run a more aggressive front tire with larger knobs (2.5 DHF or similar) and keep the Agarro in the rear.
Thanks for the reply! Most of my trails I ride here in the Atlanta metro area are XC oriented - some are designed to be flowy plus there's a fair bit of good single track with roots and some chunk to navigate.

I'm looking for my next setup after the 29x2.4 WT Rekon that came spec'd on my bike wears out. The front 29x2.4 WT Minion DHR2 actually looks pretty new comparatively, lol. I suppose I could rotate the DHR2 to the rear and only get 1 new tire - maybe a DHF.

Something else that I was considering is my current tires are 60 TPI, and I was interested in going to something 120 TPI. That plus the other tech they have got me looking at Vittoria.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Thanks for the reply! Most of my trails I ride here in the Atlanta metro area are XC oriented - some are designed to be flowy plus there's a fair bit of good single track with roots and some chunk to navigate.

I'm looking for my next setup after the 29x2.4 WT Rekon that came spec'd on my bike wears out. The front 29x2.4 WT Minion DHR2 actually looks pretty new comparatively, lol. I suppose I could rotate the DHR2 to the rear and only get 1 new tire - maybe a DHF.

Something else that I was considering is my current tires are 60 TPI, and I was interested in going to something 120 TPI. That plus the other tech they have got me looking at Vittoria.
The Rekon 2.4 is the closest Maxxis design to the Agarro, so swapping to the Agarro rear is a no-brainer if you want to try a Vittoria. Moving from the DHRII to the Agarro front would gain you a bunch of speed, and depending on your trails, may be fine for grip level. Personally, I would suggest you try 2.6 Agarros front and rear, and hang on to the DHRII in case you want to swap that back to the front.

Are you on a Trail 429? Just guessing as I know they come with that tire setup...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,132 Posts
OK, this is purely my personal opinion here... I think the 2.6 Agarro is a very dialed tire. Everything just works well together: casing, tread, grip, rolling, wear, durability...

I personally prefer the 2.35 Barzo to the 2.6 Barzo, but again, it's just what works for me on my XC rig. I ride the 2.35 Barzo all the time and love it. On my trail bike, it's Agarro all the way. The 2.6 Barzo is lighter than the 2.6 Agarro, but it also doesn't support hard cornering in the same way at low pressures (thinner sidewalls).

In terms of rolling speed, I don't find the Agarro slower in any way than the Barzo, at least in the real world on actual trails. It's heavier, but rides so fast.
How does the Agarro compare to the Mezcal/Barzo in casing size though? Looking to pair with a Mezcal 2.6 rear, and don't wan't a smaller tire up front. The Agarro was the first one I looked at, but saw reports that it was more like a 2.4/2.5...whereas the Mezcal is more like a 2.7.

Thanks in advance.
 
1 - 20 of 28 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