[kidwoo]

woo - i think schwalbe mint run the side knobs backwards on tires like the muddy mary for high angle counter steer (see picture of danny hart, and imagine how cornering knobs and dragging is front tire back in line around the corner).

now granted, you need to be way aggressive need that sort of ability, but for more normal conditions the cornering knobs on the muddy mary flex a little bit more, and make the tire a little less aggressive in engagement.

That's not sound reasoning though. Even in drifting the angle schwalbe uses wants to continually release, not cup. Every tread regardless of angle will slide at some point sure. It's after that slide that you still want some resistance so that it's a controlled slide and you have something working with you to keep you rolling forward (I know you know this, just refreshing here) Designing a tread that ONLY works at extreme angles is a self fufilling prophecy........in that it's going to keep putting you in those angles because there's no support until you GET to that angle. Sideways bicycles aren't fast. Think about a bike perpendicular to the direction of travel. The angle schwalbe uses doesn't become perpendicular to the trail, until you're PAST completely sideways. Even in the most extreme danny hart case, that's not really happening.

And do you really want to utilize that behavior for a FRONT tire? That would make bringing the front tire back in line even more difficult. Unless I'm not really understanding what you're saying here......

 

[marshalolson]

i am talking about buttering skis (danny hart 2 wheel drift) and then setting the edge at the 3/4 phase of the turn (engaging those side knobs), and having them bite into the direction of the corner, when the front wheel is under counter steer. a normal straight side knob tire (like the high roller), under this much counter steer is going to climb up the berm more, the schwalbe design carves lower.

i can say this above is a real sensation, but man, i can;t just ride that loose all the time, top to bottom every run... maybe others can. not me.

that said, i don't know that sliding and counter steering is faster than just carving clean to start with, but it certainly is fun sometimes.

 

[Pslide]

You never even mentioned a specific tread so I don't even really know what you're addressing. I was just speaking to the angle of sideknobs in general (which schwalbe consistently angles a certain way)

For what it's worth, the 'conventional' arrow points in the opposite direction of travel.....I'm talking on the tire patch, not what the tire looks like on top.

But the point of that arrow hits the dirt first on conventional angle, last the way schwalbe runs it. Only that point offers support 'along' the rectangle regardless of order. Do you want that support at the beginning or the end of contact when leaving one knob and going to the next? The more conventional angle puts it at the beginning....right after a blank space with no knob. Both directions at some point offer the lateral support along the knob that you describe. The only difference in that regard is when it happens. The schwalbe angle doesn't make that characteristic unique. And it does have some drawbacks......pretty big ones.

Sorry man, it's hard to describe in words. I think we are on different wavelengths.

As for the tires I'm referring to, most Schwables have a similar rectangular shoulder block:

NOTE: The Big Betty on the far right is rotating opposite from the others.

Regarding the arrow, I said it points in the "rolling direction" for conventional tires, which is forward from the top, backwards from the bottom.

As for the rest, I don't think I can cover it in words.

 

[kidwoo]

As for the rest, I don't think I can cover it in words.

Sounds like a call for interpretive dance if I ever heard one


I figured that's what you were referring to. But my earlier comments address that. No matter which way the tire is rolling, any angled knob will get some force directed at the inside portion of the knob. The only difference the angle makes is that it changes when that happens......the introduction of the knob, or the exit.

And that angle that schwalbe uses fvcks up whole lot of other scenarios.

 

[kidwoo]

i am talking about buttering skis (danny hart 2 wheel drift) and then setting the edge at the 3/4 phase of the turn (engaging those side knobs), and having them bite into the direction of the corner, when the front wheel is under counter steer. a normal straight side knob tire (like the high roller), under this much counter steer is going to climb up the berm more, the schwalbe design carves lower.

i can say this above is a real sensation, but man, i can;t just ride that loose all the time, top to bottom every run... maybe others can. not me.

that said, i don't know that sliding and counter steering is faster than just carving clean to start with, but it certainly is fun sometimes.

The whole countersteer thing depends on the front tire not sliding though....or at least having the traction to keep the bike rolling forward and not let the rear slide into a 180.

Having that angle on a front tire will still want to set it loose, more than an angle in the other direction. I don't think I've ever even seen anyone over correct in a drift. Because over correcting would just send you straight. Think about it. If that's what schwalbe is designing for, that's pretty stupid.

 

[stoney]

Who cares about that dirtjump tread shlt, this thread is about man tires.


Those crossmarks are virtually useless where I live. At least without a spandex one piece.

Put me on the list of people who despise the Crossmark. I've had more issues with the rear end breaking away while on a Crossmark in one month, than I had in the prior three years on a Larsen TT. I've crashed in wet, tacky, hard-pack, loose on hard-pack, you name it - and always the rear tire broke loose.

Put it on my list of tires to throw away.

 

[WParsons]

Thanks for the good review Kidwoo! I like seeing that there is another guy who is a little obsessive about tire design.

Good to see the HR2 is working the way I designed it. Your review is pretty bang on what most of the fastest guys in the world had to say, except waaaaaaay longer.

 

[jackalope]

^^

Looking forward to trying one out on the DH bike. Also, any indication that there will eventually be a single ply version?

And despite what Joker and others have said, I still <3 the Crossmark. Such a great drifty tire.

 

[Dogboy]

^^

Looking forward to trying one out on the DH bike. Also, any indication that there will eventually be a single ply version?

And despite what Joker and others have said, I still <3 the Crossmark. Such a great drifty tire.

There will be a single-ply and probably some size options as well.

As for the Crossmark, you know my opinion of that tire. I chalk up Woo and Joker's experience with it to entirely different conditions versus what we have here.

 

[Jeremy R]

There will be a single-ply and probably some size options as well.

As for the Crossmark, you know my opinion of that tire. I chalk up Woo and Joker's experience with it to entirely different conditions versus what we have here.

Crossmark + Georgia red clay = win.

Crossmark + Loose sheet = fail.

Simple math.

 

[kidwoo]

Crossmark + Georgia red clay = win.

Crossmark + Loose sheet = fail.

Simple math.

Word. Like I said, it's a dirtjump tread. Hauling ass through pisgah, tsali, gainesville etc a day after some rain IS like riding dirtjumps.

 

[Verskis]

They make knobs on a round thing, make them out of sticky rubber and that's really all it takes to make a tire that works 'pretty well'. And most people can't tell what their tires are doing or why they're doing it anyway so it doesn't take much.

I agree, and I despise treads that are obviously made to look good or different for the sake of looking good or different (ironically I run an old Nokian made Marzocchi Bomber tire with Marzocchi logos as knobs as a training tire on the rear of my DH bike, but that is because I got the tire for free, it lasts very very well and it actually works 'pretty well' , at least when it's not wet).

I am not sure about the sideknob angles. Most of things about tires I agree with you, but I think you might be oversimplifying things in your rationalization of sideknob angle. But you might be absolutely right as well.

But back to the treads you don't consider worthy, what's wrong with Continental Baron/Rain King? To me it seems much more sensible than say a Kaiser tread.

Oh, I must add, that I have a Continental Rubber Queen on the front of my trailbike, and despite the silly looking tread on it, it works very well. Much better than Syncros BHT front I had before that.

 

[kidwoo]

I am not sure about the sideknob angles. Most of things about tires I agree with you, but I think you might be oversimplifying things in your rationalization of sideknob angle.

I wouldn't say oversimplifying.....overemphasizing relevance maybe

But back to the treads you don't consider worthy, what's wrong with Continental Baron/Rain King? To me it seems much more sensible than say a Kaiser tread.

Those two tires look like the most legit treads from conti honestly. I've never seen a rain king in person but they look pretty good in renderings. Those barons aren't too bad. I've gotten a few runs (like two) on a set on a friends bike. There's a set of knobs on those that is unnecessarily close to the side knobs and kind of blocks them. We talked about trimming them and he did. Success according to him.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3667863&postcount=44

I really like the big blocky knobs on those. Fo realz


It's not a matter of 'worthy', I just get annoyed when it's obvious that designers are guessing. They're too often hoping for happy accidents (IE hoping to stumble on something by just throwing shlt out there). I'd like to know that there's thought going into these designs, not stabs at dumb luck.

Picture all the goofy looking bikes/frames/suspension designs that come out every year at eurobike. Obvious copies, obvious weirdness, obvious really bad ideas, obvious acid trip disasters...... I have no doubt they roll down hills and go around turns. But no one takes them seriously. Tires on the other hand, are such a mystery to most people in what they're actually doing, all it takes is some high profile guys riding them, and people DO take them seriously because they don't know what they're seeing. When I look at most tires, I see the same thing as all those erector set suspension frames at eurobike. 'Here angle this, throw some sipes there, hey there's not a corner right there, throw one in, make it look like a robot mouth right there......grrr, oh yeah, that'll sell'

I mean really......look at this thing.

There is nothing unified about its purpose. Angles everwhere. Sipes for forwards, backwards, sideways. Cups on the sideknobs for what........a completely locked up wheel? Cuz that's the only time those cups will do anything, they just get in the way once that tire is spinning fast.

Look at high performance car tires, moto tires, hell even snowmobile tracks. None of those display the frantic disorganized patterns that you see in mountain bike tires like this.

But yeah I've ridden those tires. They roll downhill and go around corners. Just imagine if all those angles and sipes were working towards one unified purpose and not going for the 'bed of nails' approach to traction though...just throwing angles a surfaces every which way. Like I keep saying.......sticky rubber changes the game too. The most horribly thought out treads in the world now stick to things.

But personally I like the idea of having faith that every part of my bike is working with me when I try stupid things on bicycles at high speeds...especially tires.....that includes well thought out tread designs. Maybe all the 'right' things don't make that big of a deal but at least I know they're not working against what a rider is trying to do.

 

[davec113]

I mean really......look at this thing.

There is nothing unified about its purpose. Angles everwhere. Sipes for forwards, backwards, sideways. Cups on the sideknobs for what........a completely locked up wheel? Cuz that's the only time those cups will do anything, they just get in the way once that tire is spinning fast.

Best trail bike tire ever made, IMO.

 

[marshalolson]

Best trail bike tire ever made, IMO.

you can't say that without saying where you live and what type of conditions you most frequently ride on.

 

[kidwoo]

And your astrological sign and what color socks you're wearing.

 

[Pslide]

...just throwing angles a surfaces every which way.

I personally quite like how the designer thought he's vary the shoulder block design every 3 inches or so...well beyond the length of the tire footprint. I guess he didn't know exactly what would work, so he's try a few things and hopefully get it right at least part of the time. I guess it worked!

On the other hand, with regards to all the varying angles...with the exception of hardpack, the shape of the terrain you are riding on is completely random. So I think there is some wiggle room for varying angles. I also like pin spike tires for this reason...like the old Conti Vert Pro and a cut Wet Scream.

 

[davec113]

I personally quite like how the designer thought he's vary the shoulder block design every 3 inches or so...well beyond the length of the tire footprint. I guess he didn't know exactly what would work, so he's try a few things and hopefully get it right at least part of the time. I guess it worked!

I think it did, one of the strengths of the RQ/TK is that it works well in a very wide variety of conditions.

marshal, I live in the Front Range of CO and have been using a 2.4 RQ on the front of my trail bike for a couple years. The only tire I've tried recently that comes close is the Schwalbe Hans Dampf, but not for a rear tire, it's wearing really fast on my friends bike and rolls slow compared to the RQ. I plan on picking up a Butcher 2.5 SX casing tire to try on the front with the RQ out back next... So, if you live in CO and are a Virgo who wears grey wool socks, the RQ might be worth a try...

For a DH tire... whatever's on sale works for me. I'm not willing to spend $10 on tires everytime I ride my dh bike, which is what running Minion 3Cs at retail pricing costs... If I raced and was getting a hook-up I'm sure it would be a different story but I can't see spending $600 a year on rubber for my dh bike.

 

[kidwoo]

On the other hand, with regards to all the varying angles...with the exception of hardpack, the shape of the terrain you are riding on is completely random. So I think there is some wiggle room for varying angles. I also like pin spike tires for this reason...like the old Conti Vert Pro and a cut Wet Scream.

Still though, you're only ever rolling in one direction. And other than some pretty rare instances, a turn to one side, involves that side of the tire. Be it loam, gravel, soft dirt, mud, sand, dust.....it's all material that needs to be grabbed to make the tire work in a certain way. There are certain 'universals' regardless of the material ridden on. There are only really two big goals for tires in descending...braking and turning. Both of those do fit into their own universal scenarios. A tire that's setup to grip backwards, completely sideways etc. isn't really necessary.


Take this for instance. What do you see as the thinking behind these knobs? Because all I see is something in the way of the sideknobs right behind them. (assuming the tire is rolling towards you in the pic)

You could say the backside of them would hold dirt for braking but there are center knobs in the way of them not allowing them to get access to that dirt.

 

[Pslide]

Take this for instance. What do you see as the thinking behind these knobs? Because all I see is something in the way of the sideknobs right behind them. (assuming the tire is rolling towards you in the pic)

That's what I'm saying...I don't think there was any good thinking behind those knobs, or the whole shoulder for that matter. It's just a shotgun approach to what works. Luckily the designer didn't go too wrong because it's a pretty strong shoulder overall.

If there is a particular knob design that works best, then the designer should repeat it so it is working 100% of the time, not rolling in and out of the footprint as the tire rolls...

Anyway, back to your question, I can see some logic to a knob with that kind of shape, similar to the little knob on the BBG shoulder block and the L shape of the Minion knob. It would be to ease the transition onto the shoulder blocks as you lean the tire over and give slightly earlier engagement. Does it actually work? Beats me!

I think in this case, that little branch on the shoulder block is just going to deform and get out of the way once you are really gripping on the shoulders.

 

[kidwoo]

That's what I'm saying...I don't think there was any good thinking behind those knobs, or the whole shoulder for that matter. It's just a shotgun approach to what works. Luckily the designer didn't go too wrong because it's a pretty strong shoulder overall.

If there is a particular knob design that works best, then the designer should repeat it so it is working 100% of the time, not rolling in and out of the footprint as the tire rolls....

Sorry I must have misunderstood what you were getting at. "shot gun" approach. I like that. But yeah, look at what the most popular dh treads are and they do exactly that...take what works and repeat it.

Anyway, back to your question, I can see some logic to a knob with that kind of shape, similar to the little knob on the BBG shoulder block and the L shape of the Minion knob. It would be to ease the transition onto the shoulder blocks as you lean the tire over and give slightly earlier engagement. Does it actually work? Beats me!

I think in this case, that little branch on the shoulder block is just going to deform and get out of the way once you are really gripping on the shoulders.

But this one is a backwards L...the exact opposite of what the tires you mention do. The 'proper' L is there at the other end of that pair though...

That L shape cups dirt on something like the minion blocks. That helps braking and helps support the tire a little to keep it from sliding while turning. It's the same theory behind the angled sideknobs I keep making a big deal about.

But you've touched on something that is the main reason I get so worked up about this. I really don't believe that knob in particular does dick for helping the tire work better. At best it does nothing. At worst it actually hinders the function of the adjacent knobs. This one isn't so bad, I just got on it because verskis mentioned it. But so many tire companies put things like that on tires that indicate the guesswork that goes on. I makes me much less likely to try something of theirs because it shows they don't have a unified understanding of what they're trying to accomplish. My theory on the matter is cut out all the bullshlt and just put things where they belong without a bunch of stuff in the way of the purposeful features, and you get a much stronger tread. Why not make a good tire the BEST tire? I mean that makes sense right?

 

[marshalolson]

So, if you live in CO and are a Virgo who wears grey wool socks, the RQ might be worth a try...

wow. denver, virgo, have grey wool socks. wow.

anyhow, hit me sometime to ride.

 

[Pslide]

Sorry I must have misunderstood what you were getting at. "shot gun" approach. I like that. But yeah, look at what the most popular dh treads are and they do exactly that...take what works and repeat it.

Yeah, sorry, my sarcasm didn't come through on the interwebz when I said "I personally quite like how the designer thought he's vary the shoulder block design every 3 inches or so..."

But so many tire companies put things like that on tires that indicate the guesswork that goes on. I makes me much less likely to try something of theirs because it shows they don't have a unified understanding of what they're trying to accomplish.

Couldn't agree more...



Can't believe DaveC and Marshal hadn't already found each other on match.com.

 

[marshalolson]

nobody can replace my bromance w. kidwoo.

 

[davec113]

nobody can replace my bromance w. kidwoo.

My hopes are dashed!


Anyway, as far as the Conti RQ, trail tires need to make more compromises than dh tires so there are different design criteria like less weight, less rolling resistance, etc... Not that I have any idea how they relate to tread design, but it's a lot harder to find a good trail bike tire, especially a rear tire, and the RQ 2.4 is one of the few that work well and don't feel super heavy and slow.

It would be interesting to hear from engineers who actually design tread patterns, but they probably couldn't post anything useful because of intellectual property issues... and I bet one or two are probably laughing at you guys right now.

 

[kidwoo]

and I bet one or two are probably laughing at you guys right now.

Then we're even.

I personally would LOVE for every tire to come with an explanation on why each shape is there. Trust me, the explanation for a lot of them would be funnier than any claim I make.

Let's just take an example here.

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/40645/


"See to open up a tread, we just put shlt on backwards rather than just opening up the tread."

This is the 'reasoning'(sic) that you're paying 120 bucks a pair for.


edit: and props for the 'woo rides dissents' tag Somebody here knows me.

 

[WParsons]

Thank you kidwoo for owning this thread. Its a pleasure to finally read something by someone else like I would have written it. lol....

Yes, that tire pictured is an abomination. It is a prime example of what's wrong with most mountain bike tire designers. I'm a high school educated idiot and I can pick apart that tire.

 

[kidwoo]

Hey davec: There's one of'em right there





I think stupidity should be punished, not made excuses for. Every company out there should be making great tires at this point. The fact that every answer I've gotten is just guesses on some of the nitpicky stuff I've brought speaks volumes.

Plus I don't have a job in the bike industry to protect. And after this thread probably never will

 

[davec113]

Hey davec: There's one of'em right there

He's just jealous because the RQ is such an awesome tire

 

[davec113]

Yes, that tire pictured is an abomination. It is a prime example of what's wrong with most mountain bike tire designers. I'm a high school educated idiot and I can pick apart that tire.

Then you'd think Maxxis could come up with something better... and a rubber compound that lasts longer than swiss cheese.

 

[kidwoo]

Then you'd think Maxxis could come up with something better...

you honestly think they haven't?

 

[davec113]

you honestly think they haven't?

Not for a trail bike tire.

To be fair, I haven't tried the new dhf 2.5 exo on my trail bike, but I have tried 2.35 minions and high rollers more than once and they were always a disappointment as far as durability. The rear tire needs to run really high pressures not to pinch flat. The RQ 2.4 has far more durable tread and sidewall, doesn't weigh a ton, doesn't pinch flat easily, rolls fast, and performs well in a wide variety of conditions.

There is also the issue that the dhf 2.5 exo costs $80 vs. $60 for the RQ 2.4. In my experience the RQ 2.4 black chili rubber compound outlasts the 2.35 minions in 60a by about 3x, and I'm guessing the 3c dhf would be worse. If I were to pay retail prices for Maxxis tires on my trailbike and dh bike I'd spend $1000 a year on tires for my bikes. I wish I had enough disposable income that this isn't a big deal, but it is.

I am going to try a minion dhf again, but it's going to say "Butcher 2.5 SX" on the sidewall, because it's 25% less expensive than the original 2.5 dhf exo, plus Spec. does another 20% off sale occasionally so they have the potential to be a realistic option, price-wise.

 

[bdamschen]

Then you'd think Maxxis could come up with something better... and a rubber compound that lasts longer than swiss cheese.

there's more to rubber compounds than how long they last, but- I can usually get about a year and a half out of my trail bike high rollers.

 

[kidwoo]

Not for a trail bike tire.

To be fair, I haven't tried the new dhf 2.5 exo on my trail bike, but I have tried 2.35 minions and high rollers more than once and they were always a disappointment as far as durability. The rear tire needs to run really high pressures not to pinch flat. The RQ 2.4 has far more durable tread and sidewall, doesn't weigh a ton, doesn't pinch flat easily, rolls fast, and performs well in a wide variety of conditions.

There is also the issue that the dhf 2.5 exo costs $80 vs. $60 for the RQ 2.4. In my experience the RQ 2.4 black chili rubber compound outlasts the 2.35 minions in 60a by about 3x, and I'm guessing the 3c dhf would be worse. If I were to pay retail prices for Maxxis tires on my trailbike and dh bike I'd spend $1000 a year on tires for my bikes. I wish I had enough disposable income that this isn't a big deal, but it is.

I am going to try a minion dhf again, but it's going to say "Butcher 2.5 SX" on the sidewall, because it's 25% less expensive than the original 2.5 dhf exo, plus Spec. does another 20% off sale occasionally so they have the potential to be a realistic option, price-wise.

None of that has anything to do with tread design which is what we're talking about.

For what it's worth, I agree that maxxis NON DH casings suck balls. I've got a 2.35 minion Dh casing tubeless on my trailbike right now. Guess what the weight difference is between that and a 2.4 rubber queen. Not much. The EXO is even less (although I've still never tried one of those).

So yeah. They have actually. Just quit buying single ply or LUST tires.

 

[davec113]

None of that has anything to do with tread design which is what we're talking about.

For what it's worth, I agree that maxxis NON DH casings suck balls. I've got a 2.35 minion Dh casing tubeless on my trailbike right now. Guess what the weight difference is between that and a 2.4 rubber queen. Not much. The EXO is even less (although I've still never tried one of those).

So yeah. They have actually. Just quit buying single ply or LUST tires.

I disagree a 60a dhf is going to outperform a RQ 2.4 black chili tire in any conditions, but the 42a dhf is probably a little better overall. Unfortunately, a few factors make it a poor choice of trail tire, such as weight (RQ is 820g, I'm guessing a 2 ply dh tire is going to weigh at least 200g more per tire) and rolling resistance, which are going to make the bike a lot less efficient to pedal. Then there is the issue that 42a tires don't last long enough, the RQ will outlast it many times over. Also, double ply 2.35 minions aren't even available in the US. Have you tried a RQ?

 

[DBR X6 RIDER]

Have those of you that dislike Crossmarks tried Advantages yet? You should.

Thanks for the write-up on the HR2's. Was getting ready to order up some HR's, but with these coming out, I'm naturally intrigued to see how they compare to their predecessor.

 

[Verskis]

I've got a 2.35 minion Dh casing tubeless on my trailbike right now. Guess what the weight difference is between that and a 2.4 rubber queen. Not much.

Guess what the size difference is between a 2.35 Minion and a 2.4 Rubber Queen. Enormous.

There is more to tire than tread pattern, and for me a 2.4 RQ ticks all the boxes as a trail tire (huge volume, reasonable weight, good grip in variety of conditions, tolerable rolling resistance, not fast wearing), except a well thought out looking tread pattern. Even if the tread looks stupid, the tire works.
I'd love to know there's a solid reasoning for everything a designer or an engineer does, but sometimes there are good products designed by guesswork. If the performance is good, that surpasses design criteria, at least in tires in my opinion.

I am an engineer myself and I think everything should be designed with functionality as a priority number one. And in perfect world every decision should be made with solid arguments.
Looks is very important too for commercial products, but it should never be at the expense of functionality.
And I hate complexity for the sake of complexity, structural parts designed with looks as priority, and contradictory setups (for example: GT I-drive, Lapierre Pendbox, Knolly's 7 pivots, minus rise stems coupled with riser bars, Crankbros wheels, spacers under dropper crowns coupled with flat bars, unnecessary curves on frame tubing, tire treads with logos or something equivalent as knobs, Marzocchi crowns and brake arches resembling their logo, BMX frames with a seatstay bridge machined to resemble something like brass knuckles, stems with narrow clamping area etc.).
But that said, sometimes I have to suck it up and cave in on my principles, for example to get well performing products for reasonable price. For years I have ridden Marzocchi forks with the stupid M-shaped brake arch, now I ride Kona Operator frame with lots of unnecessary curves, Marzocchi tire with logo knobs and so on.
There are many times when I have made my choices very limited by sticking to my principles, but there are many times when I just can't afford to do that.
And sometimes there is absolutely no products to meet my criteria, then I just have to get something that is the best of the available bad choices, like the Continental Rubber Queen.

 

[Pslide]

And I hate complexity for the sake of complexity, structural parts designed with looks as priority, and contradictory setups (for example: GT I-drive, Lapierre Pendbox, Knolly's 7 pivots, minus rise stems coupled with riser bars, Crankbros wheels, spacers under dropper crowns coupled with flat bars, unnecessary curves on frame tubing, tire treads with logos or something equivalent as knobs, Marzocchi crowns and brake arches resembling their logo, BMX frames with a seatstay bridge machined to resemble something like brass knuckles, stems with narrow clamping area etc.).

Great list!

I'm guessing you're not running these then...

 

[Bikael Molton]

can the trailbike tire discussion go in a different thread please?

 

[Verskis]

Great list!

I'm guessing you're not running these then...

Hell no