Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rubber is heavy! Duro, Duro, Duro. 3" tires

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rubber is heavy! Duro, Duro, Duro. 3" tires

    Itīs obvious that everybody wants the most light uni with light tyre. But itīs always the compromise between weight, strenght and cushy ride, isnīt it?

    Regarding tires I noticed that with beefy tyre the ride is more cushy, for jumping itīs vital. (I want to save my knees) Without suspension (recent FR-EN-DH bikes have from 5.9 to 7.9 inches suspension). Therefore 3“ tyre is much better than 2,5“ or 2,7“. Every inch counts and knees, ankles and hips are pleased.

    Why a lot of people here rides Duro 3“ on 24“, even on 26“? Why Nurse Ben is happy with Knard?

    I compared weights of some tyres. I was looking for tires from 26x2.60 to 3“ (sorted from lightest to heaviest, in grams):

    Maxxis High Roller - Downhill 26x2.70 ( 59-559 ) weight: 1,320
    Maxxis Minion DHR/DHF – Downhill 26x2.70 ( 59-559 ) weight: 1,390
    Kenda NEVEGAL PRO 26x2.70 (67-559) weight: 1,479
    Duro Wildlife (now called Razorback) 26x2.60 (65-559) weight: 1,500
    Duro Wildlife (now called Razorback) 26x3.00 (70-559) weight: 1,650

    Between lightest and heaviest is 330 grams BUT I FIND ONLY ONE 3“ TYRE and thatīs Duro.

    Agrument that with 26“ uni you have hundreds tire choices unlike with 24“ uni. OK, but only with narrower tires. If you want at least something to compensate downhill impacts with 3“ tire, you pick Duro.
    Then the debate about saving grams is useless.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Milodar View Post
    Itīs obvious that everybody wants the most light uni with light tyre. But itīs always the compromise between weight, strenght and cushy ride, isnīt it?

    Regarding tires I noticed that with beefy tyre the ride is more cushy, for jumping itīs vital. (I want to save my knees) Without suspension (recent FR-EN-DH bikes have from 5.9 to 7.9 inches suspension). Therefore 3“ tyre is much better than 2,5“ or 2,7“. Every inch counts and knees, ankles and hips are pleased.

    Why a lot of people here rides Duro 3“ on 24“, even on 26“? Why Nurse Ben is happy with Knard?

    I compared weights of some tyres. I was looking for tires from 26x2.60 to 3“ (sorted from lightest to heaviest, in grams):

    Maxxis High Roller - Downhill 26x2.70 ( 59-559 ) weight: 1,320
    Maxxis Minion DHR/DHF – Downhill 26x2.70 ( 59-559 ) weight: 1,390
    Kenda NEVEGAL PRO 26x2.70 (67-559) weight: 1,479
    Duro Wildlife (now called Razorback) 26x2.60 (65-559) weight: 1,500
    Duro Wildlife (now called Razorback) 26x3.00 (70-559) weight: 1,650

    Between lightest and heaviest is 330 grams BUT I FIND ONLY ONE 3“ TYRE and thatīs Duro.

    Agrument that with 26“ uni you have hundreds tire choices unlike with 24“ uni. OK, but only with narrower tires. If you want at least something to compensate downhill impacts with 3“ tire, you pick Duro.
    Then the debate about saving grams is useless.

    Well you forgot about the surly Knard in your comparison there. The 26" Knard is 4" wide and about 1650 g according to fatbikes.com. So that's the same weight as the duro but with an extra inch of width!

    Edit: whoops, just realized you intentionally left out the Knard because its greater than 3". But still, it's a cool tire
    Last edited by EunuchCycle; 2013-05-11, 01:40 PM. Reason: Omission
    -Jonathon (Jon) Korhonen

    Can you do a wheelie?

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm not sure I'd say I'm happiest with the Knard, but I do like riding the Knard for tech muni and mixed trail conditions. I'm riding the 29 x 3, 27tpi, which weighs 1250gm, there is a lighter version that weighs 950gm, both are much fatter and lighter than a Duro 3". I ride the heavy version of Knard because it has more sidewall and casing "rubber" to support my weight (200#). There is not a 29" Duro, but if I could get one I doubt I'd choose it as I can get better tires for less weight; a 29 x 3" Duro would also weigh more like 1700-1800 gms.

      In a 26 x 4" tire you can get down to 1100-1150gms, but I think the ride quality begins to suffer as the sidewalls and "rubber" thin; Surly uses the ultralight high tpi (180) sidewall in their lightest tires. I also run a heavy 4" tire, the Vee Rubber Devist8or, which is 1750gm or so, quite a bit heavier than the other 26 x 4" tires; it has a lot more "rubber", but it has the ride qualities I prefer. I am looking at a replacement tire from the same company, it's called the Float, but it's still not light at 1500gms, though it has twice the volume of a Duro at the same weight.

      When I think of the pros and cons of a tire, I look more at the weight vs volume vs sidewall/casing. Weight is important, but only in relation to it's benefits, so a heavier tire that doesn't ride better than a lighter tire would not worth it's weight, the same can be said for a tire that is too light. I rode a Schwalbe Racing Ralph 29 x 2.4" for a while, it was super light at 450gm, but even though it is ~200 gms lighter and a little more voluminous than the Maxxis Ardent 29 x 2.4", the Maxxis rides better and is more durable; I had to run high pressure on the Racing Ralph to avoid sidewall collapse and pinch flats. Now my fav skinny 29er tire is the Hans Damph 29 x 2.35", volume is slightly higher than the Ardent, tread and casing is stiffer and more aggresive, but at 850gm it is 200gms more than the Ardent. I rode an Ardent for three days over Spring Break, it's not a bad tire, but the extra 200gms with the HD are worth it for me.

      Also, don't forget that rotational weight can also be adjusted by running a lighter tube or tubless, a lighter rim. Volume and air pressure can also adjust the ride quality.

      If I weighed less, it could be different, I might be able to take advantage of,lighter tires like the Knard 29 x 3, 120 tpi or even the Racing Ralph, but alas I am what I am, a Clydesdale
      Last edited by Nurse Ben; 2013-05-11, 03:39 PM.
      I dream of hamsters and elderberries

      Comment


      • #4
        Just one more thing about the Duro: It's not really a 3" tire. In reality it's more like a 2.75" tire by tread and 2.6" by volume. Granted you're talking about 26" tires and I'm more inclined to 29ers, but th Duro is kinda generic these days and the only folks riding it are on munis.

        I think if you wait just a little bit longer, the fat 26" tires will return, though it won't be beefy low tech rubber things like the Gazz, but more reasonable high tech tires like the Hans Damph SG or Knard.
        I dream of hamsters and elderberries

        Comment


        • #5
          I really like the hookworm for dry muni to be honest you loose some traction in mud but it has tons of volume and great rolling restence
          Roses are red, violets are blue, may I procreate with you so I can ride a g32!! - Alan hogan

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nurse Ben View Post
            I'm not sure I'd say I'm happiest with the Knard, but I do like riding the Knard for tech muni and mixed trail conditions. I'm riding the 29 x 3, 27tpi, which weighs 1250gm, there is a lighter version that weighs 950gm, both are much fatter and lighter than a Duro 3". I ride the heavy version of Knard because it has more sidewall and casing "rubber" to support my weight (200#). There is not a 29" Duro, but if I could get one I doubt I'd choose it as I can get better tires for less weight; a 29 x 3" Duro would also weigh more like 1700-1800 gms.

            In a 26 x 4" tire you can get down to 1100-1150gms, but I think the ride quality begins to suffer as the sidewalls and "rubber" thin; Surly uses the ultralight high tpi (180) sidewall in their lightest tires. I also run a heavy 4" tire, the Vee Rubber Devist8or, which is 1750gm or so, quite a bit heavier than the other 26 x 4" tires; it has a lot more "rubber", but it has the ride qualities I prefer. I am looking at a replacement tire from the same company, it's called the Float, but it's still not light at 1500gms, though it has twice the volume of a Duro at the same weight.

            When I think of the pros and cons of a tire, I look more at the weight vs volume vs sidewall/casing. Weight is important, but only in relation to it's benefits, so a heavier tire that doesn't ride better than a lighter tire would not worth it's weight, the same can be said for a tire that is too light. I rode a Schwalbe Racing Ralph 29 x 2.4" for a while, it was super light at 450gm, but even though it is ~200 gms lighter and a little more voluminous than the Maxxis Ardent 29 x 2.4", the Maxxis rides better and is more durable; I had to run high pressure on the Racing Ralph to avoid sidewall collapse and pinch flats. Now my fav skinny 29er tire is the Hans Damph 29 x 2.35", volume is slightly higher than the Ardent, tread and casing is stiffer and more aggresive, but at 850gm it is 200gms more than the Ardent. I rode an Ardent for three days over Spring Break, it's not a bad tire, but the extra 200gms with the HD are worth it for me.

            Also, don't forget that rotational weight can also be adjusted by running a lighter tube or tubless, a lighter rim. Volume and air pressure can also adjust the ride quality.

            If I weighed less, it could be different, I might be able to take advantage of,lighter tires like the Knard 29 x 3, 120 tpi or even the Racing Ralph, but alas I am what I am, a Clydesdale
            Thanks Nurse Ben for analysis. Inch sizes are ambiguous and lack accuracy. You pointed out Vee Rubber, their tyre Speed 26Ũ2.65 is only 3 mm narrower than DURO 26X3.00, but Duro is 1650 g and Speed is 1215 g. Iīm more theoretic than you but I hope now I understand

            Comment

            Working...
            X