Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, my Continental Verticals are worn out and I'm interested in finding a new tire that can handle the forest singletrack. Hopefully a solid all around tire, something that can handle mud, loose gravel, and hardpack. A bunch of friends ride Nevegal's here and like them for the traction, but I'd like to stay a bit lighter than 700-800 grams per tire if possible. Most likely a 2.3-2.4 up front, and a 2.1 or 2.2 in the rear.

What tires do you love for front and back? (and what do they weigh if you know)
 

·
Ride More Work Less
Joined
·
372 Posts
I rode 2.3 Vertical Pros for several years and they worked well for me. I mostly ride Brown's Camp, Gales, and WRT, with occasional trips to MRT and Surveryors Ridge. I gave 2.1 Nevegals a try, but I found they were not good in any wet conditions. The thin sidewalls of the Nevegals gave out on the lava at MRT so I'm not certain I'll try them again. I have been running 2.4 Mountain Kings with black chili(Protection in back, Supersonic in front, both tubeless with Stan's) since August and I have really liked them. I really did not want the added weight, but have not really noticed the increase. The SS are very thin sidewall, but I have not had them in the lava yet. The Stan's continues to weep through the SS sidewalls even after 5 months, but it does hold air just fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
avam said:
I rode 2.3 Vertical Pros for several years and they worked well for me. I mostly ride Brown's Camp, Gales, and WRT, with occasional trips to MRT and Surveryors Ridge. I gave 2.1 Nevegals a try, but I found they were not good in any wet conditions. The thin sidewalls of the Nevegals gave out on the lava at MRT so I'm not certain I'll try them again. I have been running 2.4 Mountain Kings with black chili(Protection in back, Supersonic in front, both tubeless with Stan's) since August and I have really liked them. I really did not want the added weight, but have not really noticed the increase. The SS are very thin sidewall, but I have not had them in the lava yet. The Stan's continues to weep through the SS sidewalls even after 5 months, but it does hold air just fine.
Going from the ultra knobby Verticals to the MK's, how does the traction compare? I've read great things about the black chili compound, but I was sceptical about the tread pattern on the MK's in wet and loose conditions. Any experience on wet roots with them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
I would certainly like to know the opinions to this question as well. Currently I use 2.35 Intense Fro Lites which are super good tires, never had a flat or any condition........ and the horrible downside to these double walled training weight tires the the porky weight of 1460 grams!!!! I am looking to replace tires with something tough and good in mud with less weight.

I tried nevegals last spring and they didn't last three months. Also had some bad luck WTBs. Some of the best luck I have had besides the Intense tires was the stock Specialized tires that came on my enduro.

Anyhow, please chime in.
 

·
troubled economist
Joined
·
591 Posts
I find the Scwalbe tires a great combination of lightweight and a decent casing. I ran a 2.4 Big Betty (non-DH-casing) on my hardtail last year everywhere, including Black Rock, and didn't have any issues w/ the casing. In contrast the single-ply Nevegals are light, but the sidewalls are less than ideal for aggressive riding or terrain, IMO. I would look there if you want to try something new.
 

·
ride the moment
Joined
·
983 Posts
avam said:
I gave 2.1 Nevegals a try, but I found they were not good in any wet conditions. .
Well I ride Nevegals because they hook up nice when its wet, but I guess it could just be my riding style. They are hard to push but the traction is nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
tires

I've ridden Panaracer Rampage 2.35s for a couple of years in all seasons and all locations. Have loved them. They are worn now and I've been thinking about buying another set, but the weight on the Schwalbe Rocket Rons is giving me pause. Anyone have any experience with the Rocket Rons 2.4s?
 

·
Ride More Work Less
Joined
·
372 Posts
It seems rare that any of us have the same experience with tires. I have done a lot of winter riding the past 5 years and think I'm better in the wet every year. I thought the Nevegals rolled fine compared to Vert. Pros, but they did not hook up in the wet as well. I probably gave up too quickly on them in the rear. I do not think the MKs are as good as Vert Pros in the wet, but the larger volume (and running lower pressure) has proven to work very well overall for me in all conditions. They definitely corner better that Vert Pros and are much better downhill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
alembical said:
I have had good luck with the Rocket Ron's but have only been using them for 2 months or so now.
What part of the state are you riding in, and has this been during the winter?

In terms of sidewall durability, other than a few trips each summer to a place like MRT, there's nothing here (Corvallis) that would rip a tire, so I'm not too worried about durability, just grip and weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
The Schwalbe Muddy Mary is the best tire I have tried for Western Oregon winters. They are better than Nevs in just about every capacity. They roll better, grip better, wear better and have better sidewalls. It's too bad they aren't a bit cheaper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I ripped the sidewalls out of three Nevegals before I could bring myself to try the Mountain King 2.4 because the tread didn't "look" like it was good enough and where did they get "2.4"? Sorry I took so long, they out perform the nevegal in every way, yeah 29er SS fully ridged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Hey Avam, how does the width of the 2.4 Mountain King compare to other tires like the 2.35 Nevegal and the 2.3 Conti Vertical?

Alembical, I've read that the Rocket Ron's are on the small side for a 2.4, is that true? Can you compare it to some of the other tires mentioned in terms of air volume and width?
 
G

·
I rode Continental Vertical Pros for awhile; good all around tire, they last a long time; very durable. Rode Kenda Nevegal 2.1 that came on my new bike; they were OK. I didn't ride them very long before switching to Nevegal 2.35. I really like them. I ride over varied terrain; including some pretty rocky stuff and have not had any sidewall issues. I've had a couple thorn flats and some of the side knobs have been ripped away from the casing so I glued them back with superglue. This is not just a Nevegal deal; I remember Panaracer Smokes doing the same thing. Softer rubber gets shredded; that's the way it goes. I reckon the 2.35s are heavier than smaller tires; but I'm so slow already it probably is not a factor. They are great handling tires; very secure.
When I wear out the Nevegals; I have another set of Vertical Pros ready to go; if I put them on and feel bad about it; I'll go back to the Nevegals or try another tire that is 2.25-2.35; I like the bigger skins.
 

·
On wuss patrol
Joined
·
5,159 Posts
For the past 3 months, Nev 2.1s that came with the bike. Seem great in the slimy transition (between rains) stuff I ride quite a bit within an hour of PDX. I reversed the rear for a little more forward bite. Both are 2.1s so I rotate them every 150-200 miles to keep the wear even and make the set last a little longer--I wear out rears faster with braking over occasional rocky stuff.

I like 'em but thinking about a 2.1 Panaracer Fire XC Pro replacement set.
 
1 - 20 of 54 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