Ikon rear - Forecaster front?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

.....so what you're saying is that the XC tyre is better for going fast, up hill or down and over very technical terrain in races.... like XCO....

Yet for stage races a trail tyre is better..........where the terrain is less technical and the average power output of the rider is lower......interesting

That's not what I'm saying at all, and you know it.

 

XCO = fast but weight & rolling resistance is prioritised over grip. Simple.

 

Anything else except gravel grinding and hardpack grip should in my opinion be your top priority, ESPECIALLY for a front tyre, and especially if you're riding mixed terrain.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

To add. The heavier / faster you are, and the rockier the terrain is, the stiffer (more reinforced) your sidewalls should be.

[DieselnDust]

That's not what I'm saying at all, and you know it.

 

XCO = fast but weight & rolling resistance is prioritised over grip. Simple.

 

Anything else except gravel grinding and hardpack grip should in my opinion be your top priority, ESPECIALLY for a front tyre, and especially if you're riding mixed terrain.

 

 

What is "anything else"? 

XCM

trail

Enduro

AM

DH

CX

Road

BMX

E-biking

 

Surely where  gravity assist or motor assist is not available, the priority should always be efficiency. (I get it that you want the most grip)

I'm pretty sure the DH guys want the fastest rolling tyre that has enough grip and provides enough feedback to give the rider confidence

[DieselnDust]

To add. The heavier / faster you are, and the rockier the terrain is, the stiffer (more reinforced) your sidewalls should be.

 

 

Isn't that what pressure is for?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

What is "anything else"?

XCM

trail

Enduro

AM

DH

CX

Road

BMX

E-biking

 

Surely where gravity assist or motor assist is not available, the priority should always be efficiency. (I get it that you want the most grip)

I'm pretty sure the DH guys want the fastest rolling tyre that has enough grip and provides enough feedback to give the rider confidence

Mountain biking.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Isn't that what pressure is for?

To a point, yes. But as you know, too much pressure is just as bad as too little. Reinforced sidewalls are always better than having to inflate to 35psi to avoid roll / pinch flats / cuts etc, and provide superior levels of grip, together with better trail conformity. The tyre absorbing a Square edge is far preferable to the tyre deflecting off obstacles.

[Dieter ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

What he said ^^

...I run an Ikon at the back and Ardent up front...you can take your bike anywhere. Only downside is mud...with the Ikon you will be struggling for traction at the back in muddy conditions.

Yes! for Gauteng, Ikon rear and Ardent front is awesome! 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Yes! for Gauteng, Ikon rear and Ardent front is awesome!

*Some trails in Gauteng. ????

[DieselnDust]

To a point, yes. But as you know, too much pressure is just as bad as too little. Reinforced sidewalls are always better than having to inflate to 35psi to avoid roll / pinch flats / cuts etc, and provide superior levels of grip, together with better trail conformity. The tyre absorbing a Square edge is far preferable to the tyre deflecting off obstacles.

 

 

yes there is too high and too low but XC tyres have a very wide operating window from around 1.4bar to 2.5bar. There's a sweet spot within that for every trail condition for every rider across a broad weight spectrum. Side wall protection is just an extra margin of safety. Get the pressure right for the conditions, more importantly get the speed appropriate for the conditions and 9/10 pinch flats won't happen. The more sidewall protection the tyre has the lower its elasticity the less it is able to conform as a whole, the higher the likelyhood of slip. More isn't a blanket better. There are several aspects of the tyre to consider.

 

Or just ride the tyre that makes you feel fast

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Agreed, except with the 35psi thing. That's just way too hard unless you're doing gravel roads and only gravel roads. And even then you'd be better served on a stronger casing or a higher volume tyre so that you can have better grip and comfort.

[DieselnDust]

Agreed, except with the 35psi thing. That's just way too hard unless you're doing gravel roads and only gravel roads. And even then you'd be better served on a stronger casing or a higher volume tyre so that you can have better grip and comfort.

 

 

why would I want higher volume casing for gravel roads. I run narrower lower volume tyres for gravel hence the higher pressures. Big tyres add a lot of rolling and aerodynamic drag

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

why would I want higher volume casing for gravel roads. I run narrower lower volume tyres for gravel hence the higher pressures. Big tyres add a lot of rolling and aerodynamic drag

I didn't say aggressive heavy tires. I said high volume. The weight differential between a 2.2 and a 2.4 (for example) is minimal and the difference in comfort and rolling resistance Is palpable due to the lower pressures you can run (yes, lower pressure equals less rolling resistance, up to a point)

 

Why do you think there's been a movement towards higher volume tyres, even on xco and road? Because they perform better than their narrow cousins. The ONLY benefit of a narrower tyre is in weight. The xc pros no longer use 1.9's, they're on 2.1 / 2.2 minimum. There is of course a tipping point, but that's on the 2.8 plus side of things because to get a decent tyre in that size you're looking at a massive increase in weight.

 

Edit: but I'm still talking mountain bike tyres. You're probably referencing gravel bikes.

[Dicky DQ]

yes there is too high and too low but XC tyres have a very wide operating window from around 1.4bar to 2.5bar. There's a sweet spot within that for every trail condition for every rider across a broad weight spectrum. Side wall protection is just an extra margin of safety. Get the pressure right for the conditions, more importantly get the speed appropriate for the conditions and 9/10 pinch flats won't happen. The more sidewall protection the tyre has the lower its elasticity the less it is able to conform as a whole, the higher the likelyhood of slip. More isn't a blanket better. There are several aspects of the tyre to consider.

 

Or just ride the tyre that makes you feel fast

The issue is you don't really want to be over say 1.6 bar no matter what the max pressure is and if you like me are now 106kg you want a bit more sidewall. Ok I am riding 1.5bar at the moment and it still feels hard, but if I ride "heavy" on an uphill you bump through.

[Dicky DQ]

why would I want higher volume casing for gravel roads. I run narrower lower volume tyres for gravel hence the higher pressures. Big tyres add a lot of rolling and aerodynamic drag

Higer pressure = higher rolling resistance gravel grinding you could probably go to 1.7 bar at a push.

 

But that is just me and @ 106kg

[DieselnDust]

I didn't say aggressive heavy tires. I said high volume. The weight differential between a 2.2 and a 2.4 (for example) is minimal and the difference in comfort and rolling resistance Is palpable due to the lower pressures you can run (yes, lower pressure equals less rolling resistance, up to a point)

 

Why do you think there's been a movement towards higher volume tyres, even on xco and road? Because they perform better than their narrow cousins. The ONLY benefit of a narrower tyre is in weight. The xc pros no longer use 1.9's, they're on 2.1 / 2.2 minimum. There is of course a tipping point, but that's on the 2.8 plus side of things because to get a decent tyre in that size you're looking at a massive increase in weight.

 

Edit: but I'm still talking mountain bike tyres. You're probably referencing gravel bikes.

 

 

No I'm talking mtb.

I use a Duro Cypher for hardpack events. Its 2.1, The difference in aero drag into a headwind is audible compared to the. 2.35 Rocket Ron or Racing Ralph. The comfort is negligable and the degree of reduced rolling resistance is also quite noticable. Over a 80km loop the Cypher is worth around 10min.

 

As the average speed comes down, then the criteri for tyres changes. 

lets use the road bike as an example.

28C tyres are more comfortable and have negligably more rolling resistance compared to a 20C tyre

But in a velodrome the 20C trumps the 28C because its lower contact with the surface. and its a smooth surface so higher pressure is of benefit.

 

back to the MTB and the 2.1 cypher vs the 2.35 RR.

If I run the RR at lower pressures I have less rolling resistance but I need more watts to drive the heavier less aero tyre. So the aero detriment trumps the rolling resistance gain.

Over a XCO course the speed isn't high enough for aero o be a concern so rolling resistance vs traction is  what I chase.

 

every course or situation requires a different compromise

[PhilipV]

Surely where gravity assist or motor assist is not available, the priority should always be efficiency.

 

 

Okay you've just joined Myles on the list of opinions that need a big pinch of salt.

You two are contrasting sides of the same coin.

 

 

So if anyone on the hub wants tyre advice, read what Myles writes,read what Dustydiesoline writes and find the truth somewhere in the middle.