[- seb]

I guess on really hardpack stuff and rocks, then yes, a soft tyre is good. Clearly soft will grip on asphalt better due to the larger contact patch and the way it will shape to the road. Hardpack is going to be similar.

But... if you're riding on a loose surface I feel a hard compound is going to work better, it will cut through the stuff on top and bite into the firmer terrain underneath. I'm not talking about muddy conditions here, just *any* trail which has a bit of dust on it.

Imagine you had a really really really soft tyre compound (think marshmallow-soft), and now imagine that tyre going around a corner which whilst not what you'd call "loose" has some surface dust as the top layer.

If the compound is soft enough the tyre blocks will just deform into a flat surface and be pressing down on all of the loose stuff - this will not give optimum grip since the loose dirt will slide.

Now imagine your favourite tyre tread made out of something totally rigid - metal. It's not going to be a comfortable ride, but think how well that's going to bite through the dust and into the hard terrain udnerneath - it really would be like cornering on rails.

Obviously these are extremes, I just find it easier to think something through if you take the extreme ideas and work back from there.

Are we in fact just being sold all these soft compound tyres because of a placebo effect - after all, it's in the tyre company's interests to sell us the softest tyre they can...

 

[math2014]

Originally posted by - seb
I guess on really hardpack stuff and rocks, then yes, a soft tyre is good. Clearly soft will grip on asphalt better due to the larger contact patch and the way it will shape to the road. Hardpack is going to be similar.

But... if you're riding on a loose surface I feel a hard compound is going to work better, it will cut through the stuff on top and bite into the firmer terrain underneath. I'm not talking about muddy conditions here, just *any* trail which has a bit of dust on it.

Imagine you had a really really really soft tyre compound (think marshmallow-soft), and now imagine that tyre going around a corner which whilst not what you'd call "loose" has some surface dust as the top layer.

If the compound is soft enough the tyre blocks will just deform into a flat surface and be pressing down on all of the loose stuff - this will not give optimum grip since the loose dirt will slide.

Now imagine your favourite tyre tread made out of something totally rigid - metal. It's not going to be a comfortable ride, but think how well that's going to bite through the dust and into the hard terrain udnerneath - it really would be like cornering on rails.

Obviously these are extremes, I just find it easier to think something through if you take the extreme ideas and work back from there.

Are we in fact just being sold all these soft compound tyres because of a placebo effect - after all, it's in the tyre company's interests to sell us the softest tyre they can...

Although i am no tire expert, i know that soft tires = more tires sold = higher price for softer compounds. So there is an incentive for tire companies to promote "softer is better".

 

[eastcoastzigzag]

for places w/ lots O rock, mt creek/Diablo and plattekill i think maxxis supertackys are it. far as real loose, yes i think a harder compound would b better. although if any rock is mixed in, then id want soft.

 

[JeffD]

I agree with ECZZ...if there are any rocks or roots on the trail, soft is far superior. Even more so if wet.

I got back into DH in '02 after being out of it for years and wrongly assumed a tire was still just a tire and ran Kujos (insert canned laughter) in the rain-soaked Southeast. I was sooooo lucky not to die.

Last year I ran an Intense 2.7SR up front and a Specialized 50d 24" (AWESOME traction but rolls like ass) and felt like I could stick to an oil-slicked wall.

 

[- seb]

Originally posted by JeffD
I agree with ECZZ...if there are any rocks or roots on the trail, soft is far superior. Even more so if wet.

I got back into DH in '02 after being out of it for years and wrongly assumed a tire was still just a tire and ran Kujos (insert canned laughter) in the rain-soaked Southeast. I was sooooo lucky not to die.

Last year I ran an Intense 2.7SR up front and a Specialized 50d 24" (AWESOME traction but rolls like ass) and felt like I could stick to an oil-slicked wall.

Tread pattern is more important than compound - and the tread pattern on Kujos sucks ass

 

[Jm_]

yes, they are an evolutionary change in tires, they do make a huge difference, i've used soft michelins, and now i use super tackys, they work awesome. If you are riding in really nasty terrain, they can get torn up fairly easy, but there are some tires that are more "in between" than others, and will last longer.

"Hard compound" tires are more cost-effective, but you give up traction. I still have a set of intense 909s ready go to here when my super-tackys wear out.

 

[JeffD]

Originally posted by - seb
Tread pattern is more important than compound - and the tread pattern on Kujos sucks ass

I disagree - at least where I am all tires get half-packed with mud and the compound is what separates performance. Kujos suck in the wet because their knobs are rock hard.

 

[ChrisRobin]

I guess I can use Bromont as an example...any locals pitch in: lots of roots, some mud, lots of rocks, tight turns. It's gross and a little sketchy when it's raining.

You find most people using either Michelin or Maxxis tires because I figure, they've proven to be the best for this location. In this case here, the softer compound is the better choice only because of what we have to deal with here. For myself, I've always sworn by Michelin 2.8 in front and comp16-2.5 in rear. I don't really care about rolling resistance. The other day, I had to borrow my buddy's front wheel which had a Minion on it (which is a bit softer than the Mich 2.8) and man! Those are the tires that I'm getting next just because they felt like they stuck a bit more...felt like I could get away with more mistakes which is not necessarily a good thing.

The point is, for what I have around here, softer is better.

 

[Dog Welder]

I think that hte soft stuff works. Big Bear is the exact conditions you are talking about...Taho too..and you can tell a definite difference between hard and soft compounds.

 

[Spunger]

IF Cost is a concern, do what I do, run a Super Tacky or Sticky rubber tire up front, and a harder one in the rear. Saves a little money and is a noticable difference. I always try to search the Ebay or Monkey fourms for tires being sold. I got a slow reezay 2.7 mobster and a 2.7 super tackey mobster for $65 shipped. Most online places that's for 1 tire!

Rocky stuff (which is most of SB trails) I use high-rollers and mobsters. They roll fast, hook up great, and with the combo's I use don't cost an arm and leg. I had Intense WC tires and jesus they hooked up. Most large open tread tires are good for rocks etc....

I dont see many front tires really eaten up but rears go through hell and back. My front looks ok, rear is retardted to a point. I figured I'd pick up the $20 2.5 50d Mobsters from Supergo when I was there. Good solid tire to trash.

It all depends on areas but alot of people use different combo's (same tires front + rear isn't always great). Mobsters front/high roller rear is an example. Same goes with Michie tires. Different front's and rears for different conditions.

 

[bighitfsr]

I've found maxxis slow reezay compound vastly out performs the supertacky compound.

Slow reezay has better grip and wears more slowly than super tacky IMO.

I've run 2.7 minion DHF and 2.7 highrollers (slow reezay) as well as the michy comp32. I felt the michy comp32 hooked up better than the maxxis particularly is dry/loose/sandy conditions.

The comp32 seems to be constructed with soft rubber on the surface and harder rubber inside the knobbs. This stops the knobs flexing and tearing off (common problem with maxxis IMO) helping to bite into soft dry dirt.

IMO maxxis tires work pretty well but they are overly heavy for their size and wear too quickly while not really hooking up any better than many longer wearing tires.

 

[MikeD]

Originally posted by Dog Welder
I think that hte soft stuff works. Big Bear is the exact conditions you are talking about...Taho too..and you can tell a definite difference between hard and soft compounds.

Yes yes.

And I personally think that except for mud shedding and knob squirm in hard conditions, compound has it all over tread design.

MD

 

[Kornphlake]

Originally posted by Spunger
I figured I'd pick up the $20 2.5 50d Mobsters from Supergo when I was there. Good solid tire to trash.

I got an old stock maxxis instinct 50D and a 60D. Aside from the tread pattern sucking on both I though the 60D was all around a better compound, it seemed like it was stiff enough to cut into the soft stuff and it gripped better on the hard stuff. On wet surfaces the 50D didn't grip nearly as well as the 60D and the 60D lasted longer to top it all off. I even switched front for rear several times to make sure it wasn't just the effect of being on the front or rear. I saw the special at supergo too and decided I'd pass when I realized they are 50D compound.

I don't want to discourage you, they are going to be better tires than crappy tires but they're not as nice as the same tires in other compounds. I figure I've already spent several thousand dollars on my bike, trying to save a few bucks on tires is pretty pointless.