in conditions where the Assegai does well, this tire will do well and has the added benefit of better stability in high speed, high load conditions...
in conditions where the Assegai does well, this tire will do well and has the added benefit of better stability in high speed, high load conditions. Essentially no downsides compared to Assegai. It rolls a bit faster as well. If you have a bunch of high load sections, DHX front and rear can be beneficial as at times a DHR rear will lose stability and step out.
In times when it’s dusty or muddy enough for the Assegai to be overwhelmed, the DHX will be overwhelmed as well. It’s not a HR3 replacement by any means.
so with those heavily ramped center knobs, is the DHX the fastest rolling Maxxis in a DH casing? related: when the Dissector v2 was released, why did it lose a DH casing option?
in conditions where the Assegai does well, this tire will do well and has the added benefit of better stability in high speed, high load conditions...
in conditions where the Assegai does well, this tire will do well and has the added benefit of better stability in high speed, high load conditions. Essentially no downsides compared to Assegai. It rolls a bit faster as well. If you have a bunch of high load sections, DHX front and rear can be beneficial as at times a DHR rear will lose stability and step out.
In times when it’s dusty or muddy enough for the Assegai to be overwhelmed, the DHX will be overwhelmed as well. It’s not a HR3 replacement by any means.
so with those heavily ramped center knobs, is the DHX the fastest rolling Maxxis in a DH casing? related: when the Dissector v2 was released, why...
so with those heavily ramped center knobs, is the DHX the fastest rolling Maxxis in a DH casing? related: when the Dissector v2 was released, why did it lose a DH casing option?
Rolling speed is a balance of a few things, can’t give the secret formula away. Depending on conditions 2.4 DHR and DHX will roll about the same.
Dissector v2 is now available in 27.5 MaxxTerra, DH casing
New DH looks interesting to me even if I don't need that much puncture protection most of the time. My biggest hangups using radials so far...
New DH looks interesting to me even if I don't need that much puncture protection most of the time. My biggest hangups using radials so far seem to be related to the high rebound (from higher pressure). The New DH layup is similar to what I was dreaming of after trying radials and not loving them - seems to tick all the boxes for me personally.
I recall that earlier this year Jesse Melamed had a video about riding in the wet where he said he preferred the feel of DD, but needed DH puncture protection racing. Then he said he was riding new Maxxis DH casing that he couldn't get into the details but it felt similar to the DD when running lower pressures but still kept the puncture protection.
I'm kind of surprised how much the early DHX reviews point to it being a dry conditions only tire. I've felt like in the past the DHF did ok in moderately wet/loose conditions - better than the DHR which I feel clogged up a bit easier. Assegai definitely can get overwhelmed in wet/muddy conditions because of knob density. I want to try the DHX, but have a pile of front tires I gotta wear through first. I suspect that the HR3 will be better for my conditions though.
Yeah, I can't tell how much of the hype around the DHX as a "dry conditions tire" (whatever that means) is an accurate description of its...
Yeah, I can't tell how much of the hype around the DHX as a "dry conditions tire" (whatever that means) is an accurate description of its performance window vs. talking points from Maxxis to create clear product differentiation within their lineup. Mammoth is dry, but it's so dry you want to run HR3's or full mud spikes. So what does "dry conditions" even mean?
I'm excited to try this tire at some point, because I live in the land of actual dry conditions year round. Can't tell if this will be a front Assegai replacement for me, a front HR3 replacement, or a great fast rolling and braking rear tire. Or some combination of the three, or none of the above, or something else entirely.
I will add, in sympathy to the journalists, that writing about the finer points of comparative tire performance is extremely difficult. It's easy for those descriptions to either be too vague to be helpful, too specific to be accurate, the result of placebo effect and/or confirmation bias, or just boring.
in conditions where the Assegai does well, this tire will do well and has the added benefit of better stability in high speed, high load conditions...
in conditions where the Assegai does well, this tire will do well and has the added benefit of better stability in high speed, high load conditions. Essentially no downsides compared to Assegai. It rolls a bit faster as well. If you have a bunch of high load sections, DHX front and rear can be beneficial as at times a DHR rear will lose stability and step out.
In times when it’s dusty or muddy enough for the Assegai to be overwhelmed, the DHX will be overwhelmed as well. It’s not a HR3 replacement by any means.
Any questions about the DHX or updated DH casing let me know, both were my projects. In general the DHX does everything our current dry tires do...
Any questions about the DHX or updated DH casing let me know, both were my projects.
In general the DHX does everything our current dry tires do, but has more capability for high load high speed conditions. I designed it to excel in the bike park oriented World Cup tracks but still not give up performance in soft or natural sections compared to current dry tires. Ideally I wanted to simply the racers’ tire choice: if it’s dry and fast- DHX, if it’s soft or mixed- HR3, if it’s wet- mud spike.
The updated DH casing is pretty well explained in the press release. The goal is soft contact patch and high support sidelwalls. Lowering the pressure also helps the rebound and damping characteristics. This is the casing that pros have been using for the 25-26 season in the dry, so the average person can see what the pros want out of a casing.
Did you and your team consider inserts during your design and testing of the DHX?
Any questions about the DHX or updated DH casing let me know, both were my projects. In general the DHX does everything our current dry tires do...
Any questions about the DHX or updated DH casing let me know, both were my projects.
In general the DHX does everything our current dry tires do, but has more capability for high load high speed conditions. I designed it to excel in the bike park oriented World Cup tracks but still not give up performance in soft or natural sections compared to current dry tires. Ideally I wanted to simply the racers’ tire choice: if it’s dry and fast- DHX, if it’s soft or mixed- HR3, if it’s wet- mud spike.
The updated DH casing is pretty well explained in the press release. The goal is soft contact patch and high support sidelwalls. Lowering the pressure also helps the rebound and damping characteristics. This is the casing that pros have been using for the 25-26 season in the dry, so the average person can see what the pros want out of a casing.
Did you and your team consider inserts during your design and testing of the DHX?
We design our tires to be a standalone product. We do some testing to ensure instal is reasonable, but performance of tire + insert isn’t a priority for us.
I would also add, after spending most of my last rides thinking specifically about my tires feel, subtelties in conditions, rider's energy and mindset can change...
I would also add, after spending most of my last rides thinking specifically about my tires feel, subtelties in conditions, rider's energy and mindset can change how a tire feels.
For example, using the gen 1 Schwalbe Albert Gravity 2.5 US front/rear, mostly dry rides. Early in the season, not in the best shape, I was cautious but gaining confidence in the tires. I settled on the best pressure after 5-6 rides and just enjoyed them afterwards. Then I reached one ride where I was tired and the tires seemed skittish and less predictable. The ride after, they felt great again and I found the confidence back (I was less tired I guess).
So riding a tire only a few times doesn't give all the traits. I guess when you tests parts for a living you end up taking this in consideration when doing a "first ride" review.
As a side note, I still wish that the side knobs were bigger on the Albert 2.5, but after 15-ish 1.5-2h rides, they show almost no wear and are still some of my favorite tires ever.
Yeah, its so hard to disentangle all the variables that go into it. Trail conditions, power output, line choice, is Mercury in retrograde, etc. After going through multiple setups over the past few months I've found I can ride a fairly consistent speed on most any tire (as long as it's matched to conditions) and the rest just comes down to personal preference.
But hot damn the TC radial corners so well. Pretty addictive.
related to the dhx release... I want to give a shoutout to the new 3c maxx terra that maxxis released. I just tried it for the...
related to the dhx release... I want to give a shoutout to the new 3c maxx terra that maxxis released. I just tried it for the first time on a 2.5 dh dhr2 as a rear tire and the longevity/wear is significantly improved. Previously, this same tire as a rear would be looking pretty shot after 5-6 full park days... but the new compound only just started to show wear ever so slightly after day 3. Suffice to say, it seems to me that it will last somewhere around 2x longer... maybe a bit less than that. Conditions were too blown out for me to comment on increased grip however.
Same experience for me, i am so happy that 27.5 x 2.5 dh casing maxxterra dhrii exists now it is the perfect rear tire between the slightly higher volume than 2.4 (i like to think this helps prevent rim strikes) and the durable but grippy-enough compound.
Excited to see the amount of dh casing maxxterra options available in the new dh casing too.
Same experience for me, i am so happy that 27.5 x 2.5 dh casing maxxterra dhrii exists now it is the perfect rear tire between the...
Same experience for me, i am so happy that 27.5 x 2.5 dh casing maxxterra dhrii exists now it is the perfect rear tire between the slightly higher volume than 2.4 (i like to think this helps prevent rim strikes) and the durable but grippy-enough compound.
Excited to see the amount of dh casing maxxterra options available in the new dh casing too.
Any questions about the DHX or updated DH casing let me know, both were my projects. In general the DHX does everything our current dry tires do...
Any questions about the DHX or updated DH casing let me know, both were my projects.
In general the DHX does everything our current dry tires do, but has more capability for high load high speed conditions. I designed it to excel in the bike park oriented World Cup tracks but still not give up performance in soft or natural sections compared to current dry tires. Ideally I wanted to simply the racers’ tire choice: if it’s dry and fast- DHX, if it’s soft or mixed- HR3, if it’s wet- mud spike.
The updated DH casing is pretty well explained in the press release. The goal is soft contact patch and high support sidelwalls. Lowering the pressure also helps the rebound and damping characteristics. This is the casing that pros have been using for the 25-26 season in the dry, so the average person can see what the pros want out of a casing.
I've seen it thrown around that the DHX can be used anywhere the Assegai is used. I thought Jackson had been swapping between the DHX and HR3 but then I noticed he just won (destroyed) the crankworx race on a Assegai.
What about that course made him choose the Assegai over the DHX?
Any questions about the DHX or updated DH casing let me know, both were my projects. In general the DHX does everything our current dry tires do...
Any questions about the DHX or updated DH casing let me know, both were my projects.
In general the DHX does everything our current dry tires do, but has more capability for high load high speed conditions. I designed it to excel in the bike park oriented World Cup tracks but still not give up performance in soft or natural sections compared to current dry tires. Ideally I wanted to simply the racers’ tire choice: if it’s dry and fast- DHX, if it’s soft or mixed- HR3, if it’s wet- mud spike.
The updated DH casing is pretty well explained in the press release. The goal is soft contact patch and high support sidelwalls. Lowering the pressure also helps the rebound and damping characteristics. This is the casing that pros have been using for the 25-26 season in the dry, so the average person can see what the pros want out of a casing.
I've seen it thrown around that the DHX can be used anywhere the Assegai is used. I thought Jackson had been swapping between the DHX and...
I've seen it thrown around that the DHX can be used anywhere the Assegai is used. I thought Jackson had been swapping between the DHX and HR3 but then I noticed he just won (destroyed) the crankworx race on a Assegai.
What about that course made him choose the Assegai over the DHX?
He was just feeling the Assegai for that race. It’s a pretty natural track that doesn’t have the top speed of many World Cup tracks so the benefits of the stability weren’t huge, so it came down to very fine points deciding which tread pattern was going to be best for the track on that day. Both tires would have been fine but there’s something to be said for almost 10 years of experience on a tire vs 1 year if the track neutralizes some of the DHX’s advantages.
When I say it does everything the Assegai does that is averaging opinions of the top riders. Many think it does particular things or handles particular trail conditions better or worse than our current dry tires, and even on the same team the riders opinions can be directly contradictory on when the tire is better and when it’s worse. But on average the opinion it is on par with the Assegai in most normal conditions, but rolls faster and is much more supportive. This is a very long winded way to say you will see riders on a variety of the usual tires when speeds are a bit lower.
The test methodology in that Enduro MTB test leaves a lot to be desired. They measured the tires' rolling resistance on a steel drum (bad for...
The test methodology in that Enduro MTB test leaves a lot to be desired. They measured the tires' rolling resistance on a steel drum (bad for measuring any tire) and with all tires inflated to the same pressures (which is bad for measuring radial vs. bias ply tires).
Measuring rolling resistance on a large steel drum is like picking tires based on how cool the patch on the sidewall looks. And this section in their article about tire pressure proves that the methodology is whack. They found the same results for all brands of DH tires, too (Conti, Schwalbe, Specialized):
"The biggest surprise in our test came from the MAXXIS ASSEGAI: despite identical dimensions and rubber compound, the DH casing version rolls better than the Doubledown. One possible explanation: the DH casing features a coarser 60 TPI fabric, whereas the Doubledown uses a finer 120 TPI weave. The coarser DH fabric might offer more deformation resistance, causing it to flex less under the set pressure of 1.5 bar – meaning less energy is lost to deformation. However, this “phenomenon” can’t be transferred one-to-one to real-world trail riding: in reality, a DH casing would typically be run at a lower pressure – one of its core advantages. That, in turn, would increase rolling resistance again."
The DH tires measured as lower rolling resistance than the lighter casing tires because on a steel drum the faster tire is the hardest tire. A DH tire with 1.5 bar is harder than a single ply or dual 120 tpi tire, so it's "faster." This is nonsense, for the exact reason listed in the paragraph above.
Are there any radial vs. bias ply tests that don't use a steel drum, or that vary tire pressure to reflect the manufacturer's own recommendations?
How would you set it up to be representative? I know Vital did a rolling resistance test several years ago, but it was rolling down a...
How would you set it up to be representative? I know Vital did a rolling resistance test several years ago, but it was rolling down a straight section of asphalt and timing them. Not sure asphalt is better than a steel drum. The RojoDH guy posting on this forum does timed laps at a bike park comparing front tires, but that ends up including line choice, etc. and each time it's new tire vs. Assegai.
Schwalbe doesn't even provide any specific guidance on how much higher to run their radials other than a vague statement that riders often run slightly higher pressures than normal. If the argument is that you can run them higher pressure so that they'd have less rolling resistance, then you'd also trade off some of that added grip. We've seen lots of posts by users here stating that they increase pressures by anywhere from 5% - 30% from their normal pressures, clearly no hard and fast amount you could assume for testing.
I really liked the Vital rolling resistance test methods, as long as wind isn't a factor. It holds a lot of variables constant, and an asphalt...
I really liked the Vital rolling resistance test methods, as long as wind isn't a factor. It holds a lot of variables constant, and an asphalt road is actually more similar to a smooth section of trail than either are to a smooth metal drum.
The whole road bike tire universe exploded when Bicycle Quarterly started doing tests on real asphalt roads using standardized power efforts using crankarm power meters. It turned all of the conventional wisdom on it's head. Doing something like that with a flat lap or section of trail at a constant power effort on an MTB would be good, too, as long as you really are pedaling all the time, no coasting, and you're able to stare at your power meter the whole time to maintain a constant effort. I don't like the idea of using a hill climb because, while it makes it easier to hold a constant power, it also significantly reduces the bicycle velocity, which reduces rolling resistance and makes it harder to draw conclusions from the data.
I don't think different speeds should change the relative differences that much so I think uphill constant power to measure rolling resistance is still a valid option.
As for how to test, I'd say normalize to the contact patch size for a given load. I feel that would give roughly the same grip predisposition for different casings and would realistically show the differences in casings and the pressures they require. Then it's a question how much hysteresis deforming said casing requires and how much hysteresis is in the rubber compound.
Ankther option would be to instead of contact patch to normalize to for example root pinch flat resistance (how much force is needed to contact the rim with a given pipe diameter) or something similar. Depending on which case you want to aim for.
In either case this method should also give guidelines for what pressures to run when changing brands and/or casings.
I've seen it thrown around that the DHX can be used anywhere the Assegai is used. I thought Jackson had been swapping between the DHX and...
I've seen it thrown around that the DHX can be used anywhere the Assegai is used. I thought Jackson had been swapping between the DHX and HR3 but then I noticed he just won (destroyed) the crankworx race on a Assegai.
What about that course made him choose the Assegai over the DHX?
Wet roots perhaps ?
I like the hr3 better just about everywhere except on off camber wet roots.
Continental has extended its grippiest compounds—Soft and SuperSoft—to its gravity tire line. This includes the Argotal, Kryptotal Front, Kryptotal Rear, and Xynotal models in 27.5- and 29-inch.
Many riders have long requested softer rubber options for Continental’s trail and enduro casings. They’ve introduced a few options over the years, but this latest change should give you every casing/compound combo you could want.
Conti trail casing is tough enough for me, I've never cut one with ~3k miles total on various tires. I do not ride them at gravity parks and use Conti enduro casings for that. (Also no cut / destroyed tires.)
The trail soft models are useful. Surprising to see Conti releasing more 27.5 tires especially the ones that are likely used on the front. Maybe they are chasing OEM? There are still affordable dual 27.5 bikes, but mid & high range there isn't anything being sold with a 27.5 front unless it has 180+mm travel and even then, mullet and dual 29 still more popular IMHO.
Not sure if I have any use for a Xynotal or KryRe enduro supersoft. I've used the KryFr enduro supersoft extensively.
Conti trail casing is tough enough for me, I've never cut one with ~3k miles total on various tires. I do not ride them at gravity...
Conti trail casing is tough enough for me, I've never cut one with ~3k miles total on various tires. I do not ride them at gravity parks and use Conti enduro casings for that. (Also no cut / destroyed tires.)
The trail soft models are useful. Surprising to see Conti releasing more 27.5 tires especially the ones that are likely used on the front. Maybe they are chasing OEM? There are still affordable dual 27.5 bikes, but mid & high range there isn't anything being sold with a 27.5 front unless it has 180+mm travel and even then, mullet and dual 29 still more popular IMHO.
Not sure if I have any use for a Xynotal or KryRe enduro supersoft. I've used the KryFr enduro supersoft extensively.
Well it's nice for people like me that still have a 27,5 front wheel on their bike.
And I guess the aftermarket sales for tires must be a considerable market since at some point every bike that gets ridden needs new tires. Definitely more so than forks etc.
I put my radial Trail TCs back on after having reverted to HR3 EXO+/ DHR2 DD for a few weeks. Jesus, the squirm/vagueness in the back...
I put my radial Trail TCs back on after having reverted to HR3 EXO+/ DHR2 DD for a few weeks. Jesus, the squirm/vagueness in the back is sketchy AF. I had forgotten just how weird the radial Trail is in the back. The rear just felt like it was wandering all over when climbing, and then randomly steps out in corners before catching (especially flat corners). Lots of grip, then zero and rapidly sliding, then tons of grip again. For some reason, it doesn't do that on the front for me. It's like the sensation of the dead zone a tentative rider gets with a DHF, but in the back... really strange. I was running 22.5 psi front, tried 25.5, 26.5, 26.0 rear (compared to my Maxxis pressures of 19.5/22.5). I think I've gotta run a normal tire in the rear. Time to see if anyone local wants to swap some Maxxis or Conti with me.
I think the Trail is fine for a front casing for weekend warriors, but it's just too soft in the rear unless you're really going slow or riding very soft dirt all the time. I didn't notice most of this sensation in the rear when I ran Gravity (other than the weird step-out in corners). I have a theory the step-out comes from running a higher pressure, so that when you unweight the rear a little, it snaps back to full round shape and lose grip until it gets weighted and deformed again. It's hard to explain the sensation - it's quite different from the usual DHR lateral drift where you can feel the tire dragging on the ground but not digging in. This feeling comes on all of the sudden, without much if any of the lateral slide feel. I've had several cases where it happens and all of the sudden the front is oversteered pointing back across the trail, then I have to correct back in the opposite direction.
Same, but I'm more extreme in my assessment regarding trail Schwalbe radials. They can be downright scary in the wrong application. Like your rim ends up on the ground while the tire is mounted when landing from jumps. Keep adding air and it feels like a basketball dribbling.
That said, I like the trail radial as a front trail tire (like it says in the name after all!) on my 130/ 140 trail bike. It works quite well in CTX loose shale absolutely everywhere and I did not experience the same scariness.
Currently I am running the Albert Gravity on the rear on my Wild and am pleased with its overall performance, but it breaks away before the front Mazza Race so I think I'll try a Martello in the rear next time to just try and up traction a bit, and to have the ever-important matching hot patches.
On the Rolling Resistance discussion, I found the exact opposite to the general consensus here on Vital, when riding in CTX and I think the radials roll really well. They just sort of float over the tiny chunder here that typically slows a bike down. Clearly this is location dependent. If your bike encounters 40 rocks per yard of trail, you are going to go faster if your tread moves out of the way, instead of your entire wheel/ bike/ rider over all of those imperfections.
The Vittoria DH tires really come into their own at lower PSI btw and absorb trail chunder in a similar manner to Schwalbe radials but with much more stability.
Conti trail casing is tough enough for me, I've never cut one with ~3k miles total on various tires. I do not ride them at gravity...
Conti trail casing is tough enough for me, I've never cut one with ~3k miles total on various tires. I do not ride them at gravity parks and use Conti enduro casings for that. (Also no cut / destroyed tires.)
The trail soft models are useful. Surprising to see Conti releasing more 27.5 tires especially the ones that are likely used on the front. Maybe they are chasing OEM? There are still affordable dual 27.5 bikes, but mid & high range there isn't anything being sold with a 27.5 front unless it has 180+mm travel and even then, mullet and dual 29 still more popular IMHO.
Not sure if I have any use for a Xynotal or KryRe enduro supersoft. I've used the KryFr enduro supersoft extensively.
I ran a trail casing krypto-r in back on my 130 trail bike and it was fine for toughness for a 6ish weeks in southern california. I then did a trip to St George utah and completely destroyed the tire on zen trail... almost immediately, despite having a cc xc insert. I think the trail casing is really area dependent and provided you have more rounded off, sand stone style rock, then you're good... anything square edged or sharp is a non-starter for that tire.
I definitely do like the conti enduro casing. It feels like an analog for exo+ that does just as well in terms of overall casing toughness but has different strengths like a bit more sidewall support (until it starts to break down that is) and a few different weaknesses (not as much deformation and thus not as much grip on things like roots).
Regarding the radial feeling that @AndehM is discussing... I pretty much concur. I really like how the radials feel on janky/techy straight line sections of trail. A ton of confidence, ground/terrain hugging and a lot of comfort... It does for sure come at the expense of a vague feeling until you engage the side knobs. I know it's something I would adjust to if I stuck to the radial way, but I flirt with washouts and un-expected drifts in certain situations on those tires as I adjust to them and it becomes pretty unsettling. I bet if I just went full hog and ran radials on all of my bikes I wouldn't notice it any longer, but going back and forth takes some adjustment. Fwiw, I have to run +3 or +4 in a schwable radial to get the support I'm looking for. I still feel that the tire is more compliant with that much pressure over a standard casing, but some of the advantages start to diminish for sure.
Let’s not forget that one of the main benefits of radials is that you are able to ride with much more durable casing while getting the compliance of a lighter tire. might have to run higher pressure, but at the end of the day you get more durability while preserving feel and traction.
I want the durability without the weight and additional rolling resistance...
*I think what you meant to say was "I want the durability without the weight.
Also, some people have anecdotally claimed additional rolling resistance with radials, but there isn't sufficient evidence at this time to make an educated conclusion on that topic."
*I think what you meant to say was "I want the durability without the weight.Also, some people have anecdotally claimed additional rolling resistance with radials, but...
*I think what you meant to say was "I want the durability without the weight.
Also, some people have anecdotally claimed additional rolling resistance with radials, but there isn't sufficient evidence at this time to make an educated conclusion on that topic."
is that actually true? several different tests show schwalbe radials consume more watts and/or are slower on timed runs.
the additional compliance and grip is a trade-off. also, radials are demonstrably heavier than bias ply equivalent for schwalbe, e13 and specialized.
I also disagree with the other comment about Conti enduro being like exo+. it's much tougher in my usage. it's closer to DD.
*I think what you meant to say was "I want the durability without the weight.Also, some people have anecdotally claimed additional rolling resistance with radials, but...
*I think what you meant to say was "I want the durability without the weight.
Also, some people have anecdotally claimed additional rolling resistance with radials, but there isn't sufficient evidence at this time to make an educated conclusion on that topic."
is that actually true? several different tests show schwalbe radials consume more watts and/or are slower on timed runs. the additional compliance and grip is a trade-off...
is that actually true? several different tests show schwalbe radials consume more watts and/or are slower on timed runs.
the additional compliance and grip is a trade-off. also, radials are demonstrably heavier than bias ply equivalent for schwalbe, e13 and specialized.
I also disagree with the other comment about Conti enduro being like exo+. it's much tougher in my usage. it's closer to DD.
In this video there's a discussion on how Spesh has been trying thread patterns with different angles in order to optimise radial and lateral stiffness. About 8 min in they are discussing how rolling resistance depend on surface and how that translates when it come to these so called radial casing tires.
I want the durability without the weight and additional rolling resistance...
I want max grip for riding off camber flat out. Schwalbe Radials are next level for natural terrain. If you want support and durability then stick to regular tyres.
In this video there's a discussion on how Spesh has been trying thread patterns with different angles in order to optimise radial and lateral stiffness. About...
In this video there's a discussion on how Spesh has been trying thread patterns with different angles in order to optimise radial and lateral stiffness. About 8 min in they are discussing how rolling resistance depend on surface and how that translates when it come to these so called radial casing tires.
For those who don’t want to watch, specialized found radials faster on trails due to the conformation of the tire. Roads are worse with radials.
My non science based opinion agrees.
If someone watches it fully does spec plan to release lighter radials? That’d be dope.
*I think what you meant to say was "I want the durability without the weight.Also, some people have anecdotally claimed additional rolling resistance with radials, but...
*I think what you meant to say was "I want the durability without the weight.
Also, some people have anecdotally claimed additional rolling resistance with radials, but there isn't sufficient evidence at this time to make an educated conclusion on that topic."
is that actually true? several different tests show schwalbe radials consume more watts and/or are slower on timed runs. the additional compliance and grip is a trade-off...
is that actually true? several different tests show schwalbe radials consume more watts and/or are slower on timed runs.
the additional compliance and grip is a trade-off. also, radials are demonstrably heavier than bias ply equivalent for schwalbe, e13 and specialized.
I also disagree with the other comment about Conti enduro being like exo+. it's much tougher in my usage. it's closer to DD.
1. Lab tests ≠ absolute truth. Not all tests are created equal. People in these forums have repeatedly made the claim that radial tires roll slower than bias ply tires, but the tests they've shared to back up these claims (example from Schwalbe's lab here) were performed on steel drums in a laboratory. Steel drums have been resoundingly proven to not be a reliable proxy for even smooth asphalt, let alone rough asphalt, gravel, or real world trail conditions.
If you have a link for rolling resistance tests that show radials demonstrating a higher rolling resistance than an equivalent bias ply tire, and these tests were not done on a smooth metal drum in a laboratory, I'm all ears. And please share them here so we can all see.
The Specialized video that @Bananamoon linked is exciting because Specialized tested radials and equivalent bias ply tires on non-smooth surfaces, and (according to the guy from Specialized in the video) their test results showed that bias ply tires were faster than radials on smooth steel drums, but radials were faster than equivalent bias ply tires on every other surface.
2. Bigger contact patch ≠ slower. The Specialized tests are just one data point, and they're coming from a manufacturer with an incentive to convince us customers that their cool new product is better and faster than their boring old product. More testing is still needed. But, if true, their results wouldn't be surprising to me, because Jan Heine from Bicycle Quarterly demonstrated a long time ago (the article quoted below is from 2015) that supple tire casings are faster rolling than stiffer tire casings, despite putting more rubber on the road, because tire friction on the ground isn't the main cause of rolling resistance in the real world: hysteretic losses and suspension losses are.
"To make a tire fast, you need to reduce both types of losses: the hysteretic losses from the deflection of the tire and the suspension losses from the vibrations of rider and bike. The key to this is a supple casing. The supple casing flexes more easily, which reduces the energy it absorbs as the tire rotates (hysteretic losses). By flexing easily, the tire also transmits fewer vibrations, which reduces the suspension losses. Thus, a supple tire reduces both types of losses, making this adjustment an extremely effective way to improve your bike’s performance and comfort at the same time."
3. Feels slower ≠ slower: Big, low pressure, supple tires on road and gravel bikes feel slower, even though they are demonstrably faster, which is part of the reason they were resisted for so long. Grand Tour bikes have seen their tires getting incrementally bigger year after year for the last 15 years, from 23mm up to 35mm in certain cases. Ditto for gravel racing, where the standard issue tire has crept up from a 35mm a decade ago all the way up to a 2.2" MTB tire now. Yes, big, low pressure, supple road and gravel tires put more rubber in contact with the road than a thinner, stiffer, or higher pressure tire, and yes you can hear the rubber on the road more, but that dimension of tire feel is not the largest contributor to rolling resistance. In fact, or highly dubious evolved monkey brains will often tell us that slower tires are in fact faster, because the higher frequency vibrations of a rougher tire on the road, gravel, or trail are associated in our monkey brains with speed. Pair that with the fact that a smoother bike will allow our senses to pick up on more stimuli, like the sound of our tires on the road, gravel, or trail, and the confirmation bias is complete. More vibration and less noise means I must be going faster! Now where else have I heard this argument before?
I'm not saying that radials have higher or lower rolling resistance than equivalent bias ply tires. I don't have a clue which one it is. I'm saying that we don't have access to convincing data at this time, and I'm not convinced by the arguments I've heard in favor of radial = higher rolling resistance.
1. Lab tests ≠ absolute truth. Not all tests are created equal. People in these forums have repeatedly made the claim that radial tires roll slower than bias ply tires, but the tests they've shared to back up these claims (example from Schwalbe's lab here) were performed on steel drums in a laboratory. Steel drums have been resoundingly proven to not be a reliable proxy for even smooth asphalt, let alone rough asphalt, gravel, or real world trail conditions.
If you have a link for rolling resistance tests that show radials demonstrating a higher rolling resistance than an equivalent bias ply tire, and these tests were not done on a smooth metal drum in a laboratory, I'm all ears. And please share them here so we can all see.
The Specialized video that @Bananamoon linked is exciting because Specialized tested radials and equivalent bias ply tires on non-smooth surfaces, and (according to the guy from Specialized in the video) their test results showed that bias ply tires were faster than radials on smooth steel drums, but radials were faster than equivalent bias ply tires on every other surface.
2. Bigger contact patch ≠ slower. The Specialized tests are just one data point, and they're coming from a manufacturer with an incentive to convince us customers that their cool new product is better and faster than their boring old product. More testing is still needed. But, if true, their results wouldn't be surprising to me, because Jan Heine from Bicycle Quarterly demonstrated a long time ago (the article quoted below is from 2015) that supple tire casings are faster rolling than stiffer tire casings, despite putting more rubber on the road, because tire friction on the ground isn't the main cause of rolling resistance in the real world: hysteretic losses and suspension losses are.
"To make a tire fast, you need to reduce both types of losses: the hysteretic losses from the deflection of the tire and the suspension losses from the vibrations of rider and bike. The key to this is a supple casing. The supple casing flexes more easily, which reduces the energy it absorbs as the tire rotates (hysteretic losses). By flexing easily, the tire also transmits fewer vibrations, which reduces the suspension losses. Thus, a supple tire reduces both types of losses, making this adjustment an extremely effective way to improve your bike’s performance and comfort at the same time."
3. Feels slower ≠ slower: Big, low pressure, supple tires on road and gravel bikes feel slower, even though they are demonstrably faster, which is part of the reason they were resisted for so long. Grand Tour bikes have seen their tires getting incrementally bigger year after year for the last 15 years, from 23mm up to 35mm in certain cases. Ditto for gravel racing, where the standard issue tire has crept up from a 35mm a decade ago all the way up to a 2.2" MTB tire now. Yes, big, low pressure, supple road and gravel tires put more rubber in contact with the road than a thinner, stiffer, or higher pressure tire, and yes you can hear the rubber on the road more, but that dimension of tire feel is not the largest contributor to rolling resistance. In fact, or highly dubious evolved monkey brains will often tell us that slower tires are in fact faster, because the higher frequency vibrations of a rougher tire on the road, gravel, or trail are associated in our monkey brains with speed. Pair that with the fact that a smoother bike will allow our senses to pick up on more stimuli, like the sound of our tires on the road, gravel, or trail, and the confirmation bias is complete. More vibration and less noise means I must be going faster! Now where else have I heard this argument before?
I'm not saying that radials have higher or lower rolling resistance than equivalent bias ply tires. I don't have a clue which one it is. I'm saying that we don't have access to convincing data at this time, and I'm not convinced by the arguments I've heard in favor of radial = higher rolling resistance.
we did, but you brought it up again.
scientifically you could possibly have a point. the data and tests aren't perfectly applicable or limited to a single variable.
but is really more likely that everyone's perception is wrong? many people have complained about schwalbe radial rolling resistance and almost everyone has observed it, even if they feel the trade-off is worth it and they won't use anything but a radial now.
1. Lab tests ≠ absolute truth. Not all tests are created equal. People in these forums have repeatedly made the claim that radial tires roll slower than bias ply tires, but the tests they've shared to back up these claims (example from Schwalbe's lab here) were performed on steel drums in a laboratory. Steel drums have been resoundingly proven to not be a reliable proxy for even smooth asphalt, let alone rough asphalt, gravel, or real world trail conditions.
If you have a link for rolling resistance tests that show radials demonstrating a higher rolling resistance than an equivalent bias ply tire, and these tests were not done on a smooth metal drum in a laboratory, I'm all ears. And please share them here so we can all see.
The Specialized video that @Bananamoon linked is exciting because Specialized tested radials and equivalent bias ply tires on non-smooth surfaces, and (according to the guy from Specialized in the video) their test results showed that bias ply tires were faster than radials on smooth steel drums, but radials were faster than equivalent bias ply tires on every other surface.
2. Bigger contact patch ≠ slower. The Specialized tests are just one data point, and they're coming from a manufacturer with an incentive to convince us customers that their cool new product is better and faster than their boring old product. More testing is still needed. But, if true, their results wouldn't be surprising to me, because Jan Heine from Bicycle Quarterly demonstrated a long time ago (the article quoted below is from 2015) that supple tire casings are faster rolling than stiffer tire casings, despite putting more rubber on the road, because tire friction on the ground isn't the main cause of rolling resistance in the real world: hysteretic losses and suspension losses are.
"To make a tire fast, you need to reduce both types of losses: the hysteretic losses from the deflection of the tire and the suspension losses from the vibrations of rider and bike. The key to this is a supple casing. The supple casing flexes more easily, which reduces the energy it absorbs as the tire rotates (hysteretic losses). By flexing easily, the tire also transmits fewer vibrations, which reduces the suspension losses. Thus, a supple tire reduces both types of losses, making this adjustment an extremely effective way to improve your bike’s performance and comfort at the same time."
3. Feels slower ≠ slower: Big, low pressure, supple tires on road and gravel bikes feel slower, even though they are demonstrably faster, which is part of the reason they were resisted for so long. Grand Tour bikes have seen their tires getting incrementally bigger year after year for the last 15 years, from 23mm up to 35mm in certain cases. Ditto for gravel racing, where the standard issue tire has crept up from a 35mm a decade ago all the way up to a 2.2" MTB tire now. Yes, big, low pressure, supple road and gravel tires put more rubber in contact with the road than a thinner, stiffer, or higher pressure tire, and yes you can hear the rubber on the road more, but that dimension of tire feel is not the largest contributor to rolling resistance. In fact, or highly dubious evolved monkey brains will often tell us that slower tires are in fact faster, because the higher frequency vibrations of a rougher tire on the road, gravel, or trail are associated in our monkey brains with speed. Pair that with the fact that a smoother bike will allow our senses to pick up on more stimuli, like the sound of our tires on the road, gravel, or trail, and the confirmation bias is complete. More vibration and less noise means I must be going faster! Now where else have I heard this argument before?
I'm not saying that radials have higher or lower rolling resistance than equivalent bias ply tires. I don't have a clue which one it is. I'm saying that we don't have access to convincing data at this time, and I'm not convinced by the arguments I've heard in favor of radial = higher rolling resistance.
It's interesting, I don't find the rolling resistance to be wildly different for trail riding. While standard casing tires feel more snappy, I would posit that it's really just a "feeling" because my times are similar given similar compounds, tread patterns, etc. Where I really notice it is on jump lines - I have to work quite a bit more to clear things with the radials vs standard casings. Could be a skill issue. 😄
My educated guess is any increased rolling resistance is partially offset by the ability of the tire to not be knocked off line. It's also helpful that you can run a firmer/faster compound and still get good compliance/damping. I think Schwalbe's marketing of the radials for more "natural" trails and the diagonal casing for everything else tracks.
Maxxis is the Powell Peralta of MTB.
so with those heavily ramped center knobs, is the DHX the fastest rolling Maxxis in a DH casing? related: when the Dissector v2 was released, why did it lose a DH casing option?
Rolling speed is a balance of a few things, can’t give the secret formula away. Depending on conditions 2.4 DHR and DHX will roll about the same.
Dissector v2 is now available in 27.5 MaxxTerra, DH casing
This is great info, thank you.
Did you and your team consider inserts during your design and testing of the DHX?
We design our tires to be a standalone product. We do some testing to ensure instal is reasonable, but performance of tire + insert isn’t a priority for us.
Yeah, its so hard to disentangle all the variables that go into it. Trail conditions, power output, line choice, is Mercury in retrograde, etc. After going through multiple setups over the past few months I've found I can ride a fairly consistent speed on most any tire (as long as it's matched to conditions) and the rest just comes down to personal preference.
But hot damn the TC radial corners so well. Pretty addictive.
Same experience for me, i am so happy that 27.5 x 2.5 dh casing maxxterra dhrii exists now it is the perfect rear tire between the slightly higher volume than 2.4 (i like to think this helps prevent rim strikes) and the durable but grippy-enough compound.
Excited to see the amount of dh casing maxxterra options available in the new dh casing too.
100% agree on all counts.
I've seen it thrown around that the DHX can be used anywhere the Assegai is used. I thought Jackson had been swapping between the DHX and HR3 but then I noticed he just won (destroyed) the crankworx race on a Assegai.
What about that course made him choose the Assegai over the DHX?
He was just feeling the Assegai for that race. It’s a pretty natural track that doesn’t have the top speed of many World Cup tracks so the benefits of the stability weren’t huge, so it came down to very fine points deciding which tread pattern was going to be best for the track on that day. Both tires would have been fine but there’s something to be said for almost 10 years of experience on a tire vs 1 year if the track neutralizes some of the DHX’s advantages.
When I say it does everything the Assegai does that is averaging opinions of the top riders. Many think it does particular things or handles particular trail conditions better or worse than our current dry tires, and even on the same team the riders opinions can be directly contradictory on when the tire is better and when it’s worse. But on average the opinion it is on par with the Assegai in most normal conditions, but rolls faster and is much more supportive. This is a very long winded way to say you will see riders on a variety of the usual tires when speeds are a bit lower.
You rule. Thank you. 🙏
I don't think different speeds should change the relative differences that much so I think uphill constant power to measure rolling resistance is still a valid option.
As for how to test, I'd say normalize to the contact patch size for a given load. I feel that would give roughly the same grip predisposition for different casings and would realistically show the differences in casings and the pressures they require. Then it's a question how much hysteresis deforming said casing requires and how much hysteresis is in the rubber compound.
Ankther option would be to instead of contact patch to normalize to for example root pinch flat resistance (how much force is needed to contact the rim with a given pipe diameter) or something similar. Depending on which case you want to aim for.
In either case this method should also give guidelines for what pressures to run when changing brands and/or casings.
is the forum broken or is it being moderated? several replies are missing and now the thread is 61 pages for me, it was 63.
weird.
Wet roots perhaps ?
I like the hr3 better just about everywhere except on off camber wet roots.
Continental has extended its grippiest compounds—Soft and SuperSoft—to its gravity tire line. This includes the Argotal, Kryptotal Front, Kryptotal Rear, and Xynotal models in 27.5- and 29-inch.
Many riders have long requested softer rubber options for Continental’s trail and enduro casings. They’ve introduced a few options over the years, but this latest change should give you every casing/compound combo you could want.
Pricing:
New tire options:
Xynotal
Kryptotal Front
Kryptotal Rear
Argotal
Conti trail casing is tough enough for me, I've never cut one with ~3k miles total on various tires. I do not ride them at gravity parks and use Conti enduro casings for that. (Also no cut / destroyed tires.)
The trail soft models are useful. Surprising to see Conti releasing more 27.5 tires especially the ones that are likely used on the front. Maybe they are chasing OEM? There are still affordable dual 27.5 bikes, but mid & high range there isn't anything being sold with a 27.5 front unless it has 180+mm travel and even then, mullet and dual 29 still more popular IMHO.
Not sure if I have any use for a Xynotal or KryRe enduro supersoft. I've used the KryFr enduro supersoft extensively.
Well it's nice for people like me that still have a 27,5 front wheel on their bike.
And I guess the aftermarket sales for tires must be a considerable market since at some point every bike that gets ridden needs new tires. Definitely more so than forks etc.
Same, but I'm more extreme in my assessment regarding trail Schwalbe radials. They can be downright scary in the wrong application. Like your rim ends up on the ground while the tire is mounted when landing from jumps. Keep adding air and it feels like a basketball dribbling.
That said, I like the trail radial as a front trail tire (like it says in the name after all!) on my 130/ 140 trail bike. It works quite well in CTX loose shale absolutely everywhere and I did not experience the same scariness.
Currently I am running the Albert Gravity on the rear on my Wild and am pleased with its overall performance, but it breaks away before the front Mazza Race so I think I'll try a Martello in the rear next time to just try and up traction a bit, and to have the ever-important matching hot patches.
On the Rolling Resistance discussion, I found the exact opposite to the general consensus here on Vital, when riding in CTX and I think the radials roll really well. They just sort of float over the tiny chunder here that typically slows a bike down. Clearly this is location dependent. If your bike encounters 40 rocks per yard of trail, you are going to go faster if your tread moves out of the way, instead of your entire wheel/ bike/ rider over all of those imperfections.
The Vittoria DH tires really come into their own at lower PSI btw and absorb trail chunder in a similar manner to Schwalbe radials but with much more stability.
I ran a trail casing krypto-r in back on my 130 trail bike and it was fine for toughness for a 6ish weeks in southern california. I then did a trip to St George utah and completely destroyed the tire on zen trail... almost immediately, despite having a cc xc insert. I think the trail casing is really area dependent and provided you have more rounded off, sand stone style rock, then you're good... anything square edged or sharp is a non-starter for that tire.
I definitely do like the conti enduro casing. It feels like an analog for exo+ that does just as well in terms of overall casing toughness but has different strengths like a bit more sidewall support (until it starts to break down that is) and a few different weaknesses (not as much deformation and thus not as much grip on things like roots).
Regarding the radial feeling that @AndehM is discussing... I pretty much concur. I really like how the radials feel on janky/techy straight line sections of trail. A ton of confidence, ground/terrain hugging and a lot of comfort... It does for sure come at the expense of a vague feeling until you engage the side knobs. I know it's something I would adjust to if I stuck to the radial way, but I flirt with washouts and un-expected drifts in certain situations on those tires as I adjust to them and it becomes pretty unsettling. I bet if I just went full hog and ran radials on all of my bikes I wouldn't notice it any longer, but going back and forth takes some adjustment. Fwiw, I have to run +3 or +4 in a schwable radial to get the support I'm looking for. I still feel that the tire is more compliant with that much pressure over a standard casing, but some of the advantages start to diminish for sure.
Let’s not forget that one of the main benefits of radials is that you are able to ride with much more durable casing while getting the compliance of a lighter tire. might have to run higher pressure, but at the end of the day you get more durability while preserving feel and traction.
I want the durability without the weight and additional rolling resistance...
*I think what you meant to say was "I want the durability without the weight.
Also, some people have anecdotally claimed additional rolling resistance with radials, but there isn't sufficient evidence at this time to make an educated conclusion on that topic."
is that actually true? several different tests show schwalbe radials consume more watts and/or are slower on timed runs.
the additional compliance and grip is a trade-off. also, radials are demonstrably heavier than bias ply equivalent for schwalbe, e13 and specialized.
I also disagree with the other comment about Conti enduro being like exo+. it's much tougher in my usage. it's closer to DD.
In this video there's a discussion on how Spesh has been trying thread patterns with different angles in order to optimise radial and lateral stiffness. About 8 min in they are discussing how rolling resistance depend on surface and how that translates when it come to these so called radial casing tires.
I want max grip for riding off camber flat out. Schwalbe Radials are next level for natural terrain. If you want support and durability then stick to regular tyres.
For those who don’t want to watch, specialized found radials faster on trails due to the conformation of the tire. Roads are worse with radials.
My non science based opinion agrees.
If someone watches it fully does spec plan to release lighter radials? That’d be dope.
I think you and I have already had this exact same conversation, but okay let's review my points again:
1. Lab tests ≠ absolute truth. Not all tests are created equal. People in these forums have repeatedly made the claim that radial tires roll slower than bias ply tires, but the tests they've shared to back up these claims (example from Schwalbe's lab here) were performed on steel drums in a laboratory. Steel drums have been resoundingly proven to not be a reliable proxy for even smooth asphalt, let alone rough asphalt, gravel, or real world trail conditions.
If you have a link for rolling resistance tests that show radials demonstrating a higher rolling resistance than an equivalent bias ply tire, and these tests were not done on a smooth metal drum in a laboratory, I'm all ears. And please share them here so we can all see.
The Specialized video that @Bananamoon linked is exciting because Specialized tested radials and equivalent bias ply tires on non-smooth surfaces, and (according to the guy from Specialized in the video) their test results showed that bias ply tires were faster than radials on smooth steel drums, but radials were faster than equivalent bias ply tires on every other surface.
2. Bigger contact patch ≠ slower. The Specialized tests are just one data point, and they're coming from a manufacturer with an incentive to convince us customers that their cool new product is better and faster than their boring old product. More testing is still needed. But, if true, their results wouldn't be surprising to me, because Jan Heine from Bicycle Quarterly demonstrated a long time ago (the article quoted below is from 2015) that supple tire casings are faster rolling than stiffer tire casings, despite putting more rubber on the road, because tire friction on the ground isn't the main cause of rolling resistance in the real world: hysteretic losses and suspension losses are.
"To make a tire fast, you need to reduce both types of losses: the hysteretic losses from the deflection of the tire and the suspension losses from the vibrations of rider and bike. The key to this is a supple casing. The supple casing flexes more easily, which reduces the energy it absorbs as the tire rotates (hysteretic losses). By flexing easily, the tire also transmits fewer vibrations, which reduces the suspension losses. Thus, a supple tire reduces both types of losses, making this adjustment an extremely effective way to improve your bike’s performance and comfort at the same time."
3. Feels slower ≠ slower: Big, low pressure, supple tires on road and gravel bikes feel slower, even though they are demonstrably faster, which is part of the reason they were resisted for so long. Grand Tour bikes have seen their tires getting incrementally bigger year after year for the last 15 years, from 23mm up to 35mm in certain cases. Ditto for gravel racing, where the standard issue tire has crept up from a 35mm a decade ago all the way up to a 2.2" MTB tire now. Yes, big, low pressure, supple road and gravel tires put more rubber in contact with the road than a thinner, stiffer, or higher pressure tire, and yes you can hear the rubber on the road more, but that dimension of tire feel is not the largest contributor to rolling resistance. In fact, or highly dubious evolved monkey brains will often tell us that slower tires are in fact faster, because the higher frequency vibrations of a rougher tire on the road, gravel, or trail are associated in our monkey brains with speed. Pair that with the fact that a smoother bike will allow our senses to pick up on more stimuli, like the sound of our tires on the road, gravel, or trail, and the confirmation bias is complete. More vibration and less noise means I must be going faster! Now where else have I heard this argument before?
I'm not saying that radials have higher or lower rolling resistance than equivalent bias ply tires. I don't have a clue which one it is. I'm saying that we don't have access to convincing data at this time, and I'm not convinced by the arguments I've heard in favor of radial = higher rolling resistance.
we did, but you brought it up again.
scientifically you could possibly have a point. the data and tests aren't perfectly applicable or limited to a single variable.
but is really more likely that everyone's perception is wrong? many people have complained about schwalbe radial rolling resistance and almost everyone has observed it, even if they feel the trade-off is worth it and they won't use anything but a radial now.
It's interesting, I don't find the rolling resistance to be wildly different for trail riding. While standard casing tires feel more snappy, I would posit that it's really just a "feeling" because my times are similar given similar compounds, tread patterns, etc. Where I really notice it is on jump lines - I have to work quite a bit more to clear things with the radials vs standard casings. Could be a skill issue. 😄
My educated guess is any increased rolling resistance is partially offset by the ability of the tire to not be knocked off line. It's also helpful that you can run a firmer/faster compound and still get good compliance/damping. I think Schwalbe's marketing of the radials for more "natural" trails and the diagonal casing for everything else tracks.
Post a reply to: Tire chat (nerds only)