FWIW, I don't work for Maxxis. I helped design one tire and I test various tires for them, but otherwise I am completely independent.Then you'd think Maxxis could come up with something better... and a rubber compound that lasts longer than swiss cheese.
A short treatise on the new Maxxis High Roller 2 tire
- Thread starter kidwoo
- Start date
kidwoo, the op, brought it up...
Well yeah......me too probably. There are 3 compounds you can get. Figure it out which is closer to the tire you're comparing. I can guarantee you a similarly sized and equivalent compound minion (like 2.5 EXO) with a nice open consistent channel holds loose dirt better at speed in a corner......because there's actually space to do it that isn't blocked off.
That was a little confusing going back and reading my post......sorry. The 2.5 EXO is obviously a better comparison. But that's something that's maybe a personal thing that I've made a big deal of. With a better tread, especially run tubeless, the tubeless helps the traction/compliance so I go with harder tires for rolling efficiency and smaller for weight and BB height. That was kind of my own thing sneaking in there last night: better tread + ust allows for a hard compound and still get good traction.
Yeah a buddy had one on his trail bike. It's slow as hell just like a soft compound from any other tire company. I got about a quarter mile of riding on it though. Not much.
A 2.5 minion EXO is the same weight as that RQ. The heaviest RQ is the same weight as the 2.35 dh casing minion and the minion will be tougher tubeless.
And yes they're a beyotch to get in the US. Not too stoked on that either.
Nah. I was addressing verskis' question.kidwoo, the op, brought it up...
Am I allowed to bring up how many pros you've seen with sharpied rubber queens because they've just GOT to have them?
Last edited:
I can completely respect that. I've torn up so many tires trying to run them tubeless, tread pattern itself doesn't mean much if you can't ride your bike back to your car. The fact that I'm running a dh casing tire on my trailbike is indicative of me just giving up on everything else maxxis makes in lightweight tires for tubeless. But I do really like it. I was riding a pretty rocky trail last night and was pinging rims.....no flats. I've never had that happen with any tire less that 1000g. So for me, just getting a smaller dh casing tire to run tubeless has been a very good thing. And it's a tread I've been running for years that I know works better than most.
What does that say about the other company's tires?
And I agree, the 2.4 RQ is the 1st tire I've ever used on my trailbike that I've been satisfied with, but I'm still not happy with ANY options as a rear tire. The 2.2 RQ would be fine if it was built as heavy-duty as the 2.4, but unfortunately it's sidewalls are not strong enough.
That's in dh racing, the RQ is NOT a dh tire... and the RQ does roll much faster than any other soft rubber compound tire I've ever tried, which includes Schwalbe's GGC, Maxxis 3C and ST and Kenda stick-e rubber. The black chili rubber is not the same on Conti's trail tires vs. their dh tires, the trail tire version is much harder.Am I allowed to bring up how many pros you've seen with sharpied rubber queens because they've just GOT to have them?
The dhf and the RQ are the 2 tires I have the most time on, the dhf on my dh bike and RQ on the trail bike and I would say the dhf is not a clearly superior tire in every instance... there are definitely trail conditions where the RQ's tread pattern is superior... soft, loamy and slightly muddy conditions being the most obvious. As a dh tire there is no comparison, the dhf is clearly superior, but most of that is due to the 2 ply casing.
I buy tires for my trailbike 95% based on how they behave descending. The parallel to dh racing isn't unwarranted. Continental makes these in a dh casing, if they were all that, you'd see them on more dh bikes as well. Descending regardless of bike type will have similarities. I just don't agree that throwing a tire on a trailbike completely changes what it should be good at. Climbing. That's it. And a good circular pedal stroke goes a long way.
I've ridden minions a lot on some steep loamy trails (thinking pnw here) and yeah they leave a little room for improvement with the flat closely spaced centerknobs. They still corner like a champ though......which is mostly what I care about. I don't know......we're starting to get into personal preference a bit too in my opinion.
I'd be willing to try a pair of those things if someone wants to give them to me. I'm not spending my own money on tires that look like they have the forethought of what's essentially knob vomit. I've been riding mountain bikes for almost 20 years now with trail riding being the one solidly consistent genre accross that span. I started geeking out on tires almost immediately and I know what patterns, channels and layouts work for what I want to ride. My opinions are based on feeling behaviors of the things and and then looking at them and figuring out why. Patterns emerge and there's a definite consistency in what tires that work really well look like. It's certainly not the other way around although it may seem like it.
There's nothing that unique about that RQ tire tread-wise. Take a look at a bontrager big earl. But after probably somewhere around 50 different designs I've ridden on various bikes, I've come to know what to look for in a tire. That RQ doesn't have it. Again....that's just tread design.......not taking into account compounds etc....
I'm glad you've got a tire you're stoked on. But in the solitary discussion of tread design, all I'm saying that they could have done better.
I've ridden minions a lot on some steep loamy trails (thinking pnw here) and yeah they leave a little room for improvement with the flat closely spaced centerknobs. They still corner like a champ though......which is mostly what I care about. I don't know......we're starting to get into personal preference a bit too in my opinion.
I'd be willing to try a pair of those things if someone wants to give them to me. I'm not spending my own money on tires that look like they have the forethought of what's essentially knob vomit. I've been riding mountain bikes for almost 20 years now with trail riding being the one solidly consistent genre accross that span. I started geeking out on tires almost immediately and I know what patterns, channels and layouts work for what I want to ride. My opinions are based on feeling behaviors of the things and and then looking at them and figuring out why. Patterns emerge and there's a definite consistency in what tires that work really well look like. It's certainly not the other way around although it may seem like it.
There's nothing that unique about that RQ tire tread-wise. Take a look at a bontrager big earl. But after probably somewhere around 50 different designs I've ridden on various bikes, I've come to know what to look for in a tire. That RQ doesn't have it. Again....that's just tread design.......not taking into account compounds etc....
I'm glad you've got a tire you're stoked on. But in the solitary discussion of tread design, all I'm saying that they could have done better.
Last edited:
Since we are talking Conti trail tires, for better or worse, whatever happened to the new MountainKing they showed in 2010? Is it available?
I actually really like the look of this tire...
I actually really like the look of this tire...
Where's the straight line braking on that tire though? Nowhere to be found.Since we are talking Conti trail tires, for better or worse, whatever happened to the new MountainKing they showed in 2010? Is it available?
I actually really like the look of this tire...
Those came with my Session 88, mediocre and too lightweight for dh... I also noticed they had a similar pattern, but the RQ works better.
I don't think the RQ is available in a dh version, the 1050g tire is a single ply UST rated tire, otherwise identical to the regular 2.4 black chili tire. I would like to try the Rain King/Baron on the dh bike though... I think the dh version of the black chili compound is going to be awesome.
Kidwoo, I was just thinking that a lot of tread patterns are probably computer generated and based on simulation software. I designed an intake manifold with the assistance of Ricardo, an engine simulator... basically you set up the model as true to life as possible and make a few carefully thought out design choices into variables, such as intake runner length vs plenum volume on an intake manifold, or maybe sidelug angle and whatever else you care about in a mtb tire, and let the computer calculate all the possible outcomes. After a few days of the computer crunching the numbers, you get the results... IDK, it could explain how some tread patterns were created.
You mean similar to the same FEA models used to design frames that still crack and break?
I admit I have no idea how a lot of these guys come up with their designs. I just assumed it was a solid blow the head with a strobelight based on what a lot of them look like. If a modeling system like that exists (which I'm sure it does in the world of auto tire and/or moto), I'd like to play with it for sure. I'd call mine "Collin Bailey" just for fun.
Conti had that RQ tread listed in their dh tires, I assumed it was the same as their other ones. Maybe not.
I admit I have no idea how a lot of these guys come up with their designs. I just assumed it was a solid blow the head with a strobelight based on what a lot of them look like. If a modeling system like that exists (which I'm sure it does in the world of auto tire and/or moto), I'd like to play with it for sure. I'd call mine "Collin Bailey" just for fun.
Conti had that RQ tread listed in their dh tires, I assumed it was the same as their other ones. Maybe not.
Which way do you see it rolling? The centerknobs indicate one way for braking but the sides indicate the opposite. Mostly it looks like away to me but those spaced pairs of centerknobs then form that lame braking edge angle when leaned over. Silly.
Last edited:
rolling away from viewer?Which way do you see it rolling? The centerknobs indicate one way for braking but the sides indicate the opposite. Unless you're really into schwalbe logic(sic)
You're too quick. Yeah I agree but check my edited post. Those unsiped square pairs in the center kind of blow the program.
sure, they should just be square, not angled, but at least they serve to push the tire in the right direction, unlike the high roller.
i think that is pretty minor, man. everything else on it is right, and i bet those would ride really well.
i think that is pretty minor, man. everything else on it is right, and i bet those would ride really well.
Last edited:
I think it's more a soft / intermediate conditions tire. You'll get good penetration (heh heh) with those center knobs and high contact pressure, so braking should be good in those conditions. Less so on hardpack.
They don't actually. They do exactly the same thing as the highroller. Look at it again and picture which way they face once on the ground. They form the same edge angled the same way. They don't have the sharp point but the sides are what pushes while braking, not the point itself.
Last edited:
those are maybe 10deg from straight in the real world, where the high roller is like 40deg.
check out the baron 2.3 black chilli/apex 950g tire.
check out the baron 2.3 black chilli/apex 950g tire.
You really going to discount minutia in a sport where arguments over 2mm and half a degree are commonplace?
It's still dumb. There's no reason for it and if there's any influence at all, it's a negative one.
You know the difference between sticking and sliding is a fine line. Why mess with it in a detrimental way at all?
It's still dumb. There's no reason for it and if there's any influence at all, it's a negative one.
You know the difference between sticking and sliding is a fine line. Why mess with it in a detrimental way at all?
Last edited:
I'm confused. For braking they are angled the right way aren't they?
YOU look at it again...
EDIT: I'm assuming the tire is rolling away from you and the shoulder blocks are angled conventionally.
I'm talking about the outside edges of those blocks. They form a angles that look like this when the tire is on the ground /___ ___\I'm confused. For braking they are angled the right way aren't they?
YOU look at it again...
EDIT: I'm assuming the tire is rolling away from you and the shoulder blocks are angled conventionally.
I had to put those underlines in there to space the slashes......weird.
But yeah the ends of the knobs do cup dirt. But then look at the other sides too....There's a big cupping funnel there as well......but it faces the wrong way. If those knobs were turned around you'd eliminate that angled braking surface AND still maintain a cupping pattern for braking.
Last edited:
Michelin WildrockrSo woo, give me your cliff notes on this tread pattern.
Ha, I have been running these on my trailbike for a year, but just got the DH versions 2 rides ago.
(FWIW the forward facing knobs are all ramped, but it does not show well in the pic.)
I tried them at Pila.
They brake great and roll great, that's all.
They get deflected from roots and rocks, where Minions and most other tyres just roll over them. And their sideknobs don't start gripping when you lean over, they just slide and slide and slide. They have a very balloon like profile.
A 2/3 worn Minion 3C offered more grip and a more predictable behaviour.
Ran the 2.25" downhill version of the Michelins.
Last edited:
agreed 100%You really going to discount minutia in a sport where arguments over 2mm and half a degree are commonplace?
It's still dumb. There's no reason for it and if there's any influence at all, it's a negative one.
You know the difference between sticking and sliding is a fine line. Why mess with it in a detrimental way at all?
just saying the effect will be dramatically smaller than on a high roller.
I'm sure you're right.
It still might help you eat shlt though. Nobody needs help doing that.
And tire companies don't need help having excuses made for them at this point either. That's my approach at least.
I mean even if you do all the RIGHT things, you still may not get the behavior you're after. Things should be spaced more, angled more/less etc. Why mess around with things that are blatantly NOT right? That certainly won't put in the realm of success.
Last edited:
Angling them make em look faster on the sales floor.
That was awesome and thorough. Nice write up.
Its now a better rear tire than a front tire.
Im going to try an MP60 HR2 for the rear and a 3C front
already got em so hopefully I wont be bummed on the 3C HR2 in front.
Im sure they'll be fine for my local trails in Pacifica
...maybe less so for N* etc where its looser.
Not too worried about it. seems that it'll feel pretty similar
to an ST/3C DHF in front, which is what I usually run.
already got em so hopefully I wont be bummed on the 3C HR2 in front.
Im sure they'll be fine for my local trails in Pacifica
...maybe less so for N* etc where its looser.
Not too worried about it. seems that it'll feel pretty similar
to an ST/3C DHF in front, which is what I usually run.
Last edited:
That was a pretty good review, nice pics too.
One question I have based on this statement: "One of the first things I noticed on the High Roller II was how much more I had to lean the bike into corners compared to the original High Roller. The old High Roller had a fast, almost harsh transition when going from the center to the corning knobs, where the High Roller II takes a bit more energy to get on the side knobs, but provides a much smoother and predictable setup into corners."
Is this because the center knobs are now taller, which means the tire actually engages the side knobs later?
One question I have based on this statement: "One of the first things I noticed on the High Roller II was how much more I had to lean the bike into corners compared to the original High Roller. The old High Roller had a fast, almost harsh transition when going from the center to the corning knobs, where the High Roller II takes a bit more energy to get on the side knobs, but provides a much smoother and predictable setup into corners."
Is this because the center knobs are now taller, which means the tire actually engages the side knobs later?
diggin em so far- have a different sound than the usual DHF
more drifty in front i noticed til u give it more angle.
not sure if thats a good thing..
the front DHF it replaced was so worn I havent noticed the
side knobs folding prematurely YET...
superrb braking
more drifty in front i noticed til u give it more angle.
not sure if thats a good thing..
the front DHF it replaced was so worn I havent noticed the
side knobs folding prematurely YET...
superrb braking
these guys are now available at bti as a 2.4 exo 920 grams...
just FWIW.
just FWIW.
"these guys are now available at bti as a 2.4 exo 920 grams..."
What is the "single" compound?
Maxxpro?
Wish they would do a dual compound center/shoulder like Specialized or even Kenda. I haven't ridden 3C but seems like it is still a fast wearing combination.
What is the "single" compound?
Maxxpro?
Wish they would do a dual compound center/shoulder like Specialized or even Kenda. I haven't ridden 3C but seems like it is still a fast wearing combination.
yeah 60 durometer / maxxpro.
Yes, 60a MaxxPro
3C MaxxTerra coming soon...
3C MaxxTerra coming soon...
what I want to know is when does the Maxx Headroom come out?!