Tire test results from german "bike" magazine

[Iwan Kemp]

---

puncture height is flattening height: the higher the number, the better. they test it with a hetchet which falls down from test to test which higher and higher height., for example test 1 40cm, test 2 45cm, test 50 et cetera. the shown value is the first height the tire flattens. they test also for thorn proofness with a metal thorn. i will edit that soon too. thorn test isnt available for all tires. class a is highest resistance, class f lowest. RR measurement: (bad english incoming!) Rolling resistance: All tires are set up with 2,5 bar. Then they are set up on the testing role without load. Then they are accelerated on 20 kilometers per hour. Now the resistance is set to zero to eliminate air resistance and bearing friction. Then the wheel gets loaded with 50kg. After a short time the tire runs again with 20km/h. The difference from unloaded and loaded run results gets the rolling resistance in watt. movements in the carcass play a larger role than the tread. mibro 2.25 rolling resistance: 22,3 watt flattening height: 50cm thorn: c cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 3/6 (more= the better) 2.35 nevegal RR: more than 50watt flattening height: 43,3cm cornering stability/ability: 6/6 (more= the better) traction: 6/6 (more= the better) nobby nic 2.4 triple RR: 28,0 watt flattening height: 70cm thorn: a cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better) traction: 6/6 (more= the better) (update bike 4/08) furious fred 2.0 RR: 19,9watt flattening height: 42,5cm thorn: e cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better) traction: 2/6 (more= the better) racing ralph 2.25 triple 2007 RR: 26,2 watt flattening height: 65cm cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 4/6 (more= the better) racing ralph 2.25 evo TUBELESS 2008 RR: 19,8 watt flattening height: 80cm thorn: b cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 4/6 (more= the better) smart sam 2.1 RR: 28,9 watt flattening height: 55cm thorn: b cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 5/6 (more= the better) fat albert RR: 34,4 watt flattening height: 78cm thorn: no information cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better) traction: 6/6 (more= the better) little albert light (old test from 2004!) RR: 32,1 watt flattening height:- thorn: - cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 5/6 (more= the better) big betty 2.4 triple RR: 32,2 watt flattening height: 110cm thorn: c cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better) traction: 6/6 (more= the better) (comment in the bike-test: big betty should have been rated 7/6 in traction and cornering stability) hutchinson python ng mrc medium 2.25 RR: 36,4watt flattening height: 70cm thorn: b cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better) traction: 4/6 (more= the better) larsen tt 2,3 exception RR: 36,6 watt flattening height: 85cm thorn: c cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better) traction: 4/6 (more= the better) mountain king 2.4 protection RR: 32,5 watt puncture height: 65cm thorn: d cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better) traction: 6/6 (more= the better) race king 2.2 RR: 23,9 watt flattening height: 55cm thorn: f cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 4/6 (more= the better) explorer 2.1 supersonic RR: 28,5 watt flattening height: 40cm thorn:c cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better) traction: 3/6 (more= the better) specialized the captain 2 RR: 39,2 watt flattening height: 85cm thorn: c cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 5/6 (more= the better) specialized resolution 2.1 RR: 38,5 watt flattening height: 65cm thorn: d cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better) traction: 5/6 (more= the better) nokian nbx 2.3 RR: 26,8 watt flattening height: 35cm thorn: - cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better) traction: 4/6 (more= the better) maxxis crossmark 2.1 exception RR: 27,4 watt flattening height: 55cm thorn: b cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better) traction: 3/6 (more= the better) maxxis ignitor exception 2.1 RR: 34,3 watt flattening height: 36,7cm thorn: - cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 6/6 (more= the better) maxxis ignitor exception 2.35 RR: 32,3 watt flattening height: 55cm thorn: - cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better) traction: 5/6 (more= the better) wtb mutano raptor (tested as all-mountain. maybe because of that only 2/6 cornering points) RR: 30,7 watt flattening height: 65cm thorn: d cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better) traction: 3/6 (more= the better) kenda karma 2.2 RR: 41,3 watt flattening height: 65cm thorn: e cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better) traction: 5/6 (more= the better) kenda small block eight 2,1 RR: 34,2 watt flattening height: 55cm thorn: c cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better) traction: 5/6 (more= the better) IRC trailbear 2.25 (2004 tested, got the "bang for the buck" award! (costs about 10? here in germany) RR: 32,5 watt flattening height: 41,67cm thorn: - cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better) traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

The Crow2008-06-10 08:54:32

[Marius]

So it's 6/6 for my Nevegal on the front and 6/6 for my Mountian King on the back

[Red Zone]

Crossmarks didnt do well except for the rolling resistance.

[Johan Bornman]

It is such a pity that so much Thorn information is missing. It would have been nice to plot RR against puncture resistance. All things being equal, a thick tyre is puncture resistant but high and RR and vice versa.

 

Do you know if the metal thorn was sharp or blunt? If the latter, it would make a big difference with Kevlar tyres.

 

Does anyone know what a Kenda Karma looks like? It has an enormous RR and yet a very low puncture resistance. I suspect big knobblies...?

 

[Dragson]

Most of you probably have seen this but here is a Document from Schwalbe  about test thy have done about rolling resistance and tire pressures.

 

http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Downloadable%20Docs/Rolling%20Resistance%20Eng%20illustrated.pdf  

[GIRR]

wow i cant believe the rolling resistance difference is so large, doing an extra 10watts an entire race than the person next to you is a fair amount.

 

I would've thought the small block eight tyres would've had a lower rolling resistance as they have a very shallow small nobblies and are more for hard pack.

 

Kenda karmas as well, they are not designed to have a very good rolling resistance yet still have an unsuspectedly high one, their knobblies are fairly shallow and not so much like mud tyres such as the jones mud X.

I'll post a picture when i find one of the Kenda Karmas.

[GIRR]

http://www.ykkbikes.com/files/Karma.jpg

[JasonW]

Out of interest, Burry Stander rides on Karmas. An extra 10 watts and he would probably win! JasonW2008-06-12 07:51:05

[TitusTi]

Must say, I was also a little suprised by the Kharma RR result?

[madmarc]

come on guys - rolling resistance on a MTB tyre

you MTB'ers are starting to sound like roadies. with the ever changing terain you ride on surley this is not an issue. I would think punture resistance and tyre weight would be the main issue

[MTBiker]

anyone know what a specialized fast trak is like for RR