[bholwell]

Yes. I am excited to try this tire out. Lars' description sounded great even in comparison with the mighty Minion DHF. So yeah... looking forward to it.

I always liked the Minion DHF front and High Roller rear for the braking, cornering and "rear brake free first" feeling. However the pointy center knob on the High Roller wears out too fast and running different tires F&R is not so sweet for rotating and only replacing one at a time

So you've talked to Lars? If yes, then you know he thinks pretty highly of the new tire. I think this will be a tire you'll enjoy running front and rear- maybe a set for loose and muddy, and a separate set of DHF's for dry??? Anyhow, you shouldn't have to wait too long for them- we've placed a sizable order from the factory.

The wear rate is similar to the original High Roller since the compounds used are the same, and the land-to-sea ratio (that's knob-to-void ratio) is similar. Oh, and today we finalized the whole tire name thing. I can't tell you yet, but the solution should satisfy everyone.

 

[Pslide]

I'd be happy to elaborate on why good tires work and bad ones don't but I don't think even you would want to sit through more of diatribes.

I'd be happy to sit through that diatribe.

I love reading these tire threads, especially now that Wayne and Brian have joined in.

Although any talk about tread patterns need to include what type of surface they are talking about. People have made some strong statements that hold for certain types of surface but not others. The way I see it, you want different design features for hard pack vs. rock vs. soft conditions (not to mention mud).

I was never a HR fan, but this new tire does look to improve it. I wonder if it will be too slow rolling for the pros? No one has mentioned this yet... Perhaps that's why they haven't planned a super tacky?

 

[bholwell]

I was never a HR fan, but this new tire does look to improve it. I wonder if it will be too slow rolling for the pros? No one has mentioned this yet... Perhaps that's why they haven't planned a super tacky?

No, most of the guys felt that the rolling resistance was on par with the original High Roller, and a few felt that it was slightly faster. Honestly, it's probably almost exactly the same. The center tread is very similar, and a lot of a tire's rolling resistance is imparted from the casing construction and the tread's base layer of rubber, and these are exactly the same. Only the two specs were tested to first prove the merit of the new tire. Now that that has been accomplished, other specs can be developed, but our SOP dictates that they must be fully tested first. That'll just take a little more time...

 

[bholwell]

Push for it will ya?

Only after an EXO 2.3 minion dhf for all us downhillers with trail bikes though.

Truthfully, the best place to voice your opinion on what tire you would like to see from Maxxis that isn't yet offered is through the contact submission form on the website -> http://www.maxxis.com/About-Maxxis/Contact-Us.aspx

Under "Inquiry Type" select "Bicycle". I love to hear from our customers & sponsored riders about what tires they would like to see. In fact, I recently finished designing a tire requested "by popular demand".

 

[Pslide]

No, most of the guys felt that the rolling resistance was on par with the original High Roller...

Thanks Brian, I happily stand corrected!

 

[Kntr]

I want Minion SRY back.

 

[yuroshek]

Im very excited to try these new XX tires from Maxxis, Ive been a HR fan for almost 2 full seasons (havent been riding much more than that lol) The HR is a great tire, I run them both F/R on my DH and trail bike. They hook up amazing out on the XC bike, yes they might be a little slow up the climbs but they will defiantly help me pass the roadies on the DH's .

I think im about the only person that is not a fan of the Minon DHF tire, after it failed on me in the 2009 US Open I have never used them again.

 

[kidwoo]

Truthfully, the best place to voice your opinion on what tire you would like to see from Maxxis that isn't yet offered is through the contact submission form on the website -> http://www.maxxis.com/About-Maxxis/Contact-Us.aspx

Under "Inquiry Type" select "Bicycle". I love to hear from our customers & sponsored riders about what tires they would like to see. In fact, I recently finished designing a tire requested "by popular demand".

All right.....everyone reading this: 2.3 minion EXO for your trail bike. Those 2.5s are a little big for a long distance pedal and the mold for a 2.3 already exists for the full dh version.

Attack!!!

Just speaking for myself, I think you guys have a tread design of some sort that covers about everything.......especially once this new guy is out. At this point it's just sizes in certain compounds and tougher tubeless options that you don't offer that I'm after. But I'll definitely submit a request or two.

Thanks a bunch for joining the conversation here.


Hey pslide: Let me find some pics and I'll go nuts if you're serious.

 

[Slater]

Hey pslide: Let me find some pics and I'll go nuts if you're serious.

Please do!


Also, thank you to the guys at Maxxis for joining in on this thread!

 

[WParsons]

I have a pair of these Descendants on my AM bike right now, in a single ply 2.4". I'm probably not the most partial guy to comment on them, but yea they're the best tire ever! But seriously, a best case comparison would be like a Comp16 but slightly more firm, if that makes sense. To me it helps bridge the gap between what the Comp16 was (and where it lacked) and the High Roller (and where it lacked). Its going to be way more versatile than the Comp16 was but way more grippy than the High Roller. In my best partial way, its going to be a great addition to the line up.

 

[Pslide]

Hey pslide: Let me find some pics and I'll go nuts if you're serious.

Yeah, go for it. I've got theories of my own that nobody else seems to grasp or maybe they've never come up, would be interesting to compare our thoughts.

Since we are getting all geeky, I'll go into some detail and stick my neck out on some basic tire design theory.

My feeling is that the space in between the knobs can be just as critical as the knobs themselves.

Especially on hardpack, a stable cornering tire will allow you to push through the knobs and corner on the carcass. You don't want the tire to be fully supported on knobs, you want to be deforming the knobs so that they have high contact pressure and generate grip, but you want a lot of cornering load to be doing directly into the carcass rather than deforming through a big knob.

I think on the Minion, that channel allows you to corner on the carcass while the side knobs are giving you enough grip. And the center knobs will still be in contact most of the time too, so you have a very stable cornering tire with a wide footprint in a corner.

I didn't like the HR because it would skate out in medium corners when used as a rear tire (for me at least). I obviously wasn't engaging the side knobs enough, but not all corners require big lean angles. I think why many do like the HR though is because you do have a lot of contact with the carcass, making it quite stable assuming you are getting the knobs engaged. And it rolls pretty well with a super tacky compound.

My other favorite tire is the Muddy Mary. The knobs are a bit smaller on this tire, which allows great penetration into softer surfaces while still allowing the ground to contact the carcass for stability. But the Muddy Mary is no good for hardpack because it just skates around on the smaller knobs. Not great in rocks either...

In rocks, you have a different story. You really don't want rock to be engaging the carcass as much because there's not as much give. You want big, deformable knobs that can envelope rocky edges and get grip. I think the Minion is a good example of a good rock tire, despite the large channel.

So the Minion is a great dry/hard/rock tire, but doesn't quite generate the ultimate grip in softer intermediate conditions as something like a Muddy Mary.

In terms of tire profile, I've yet to find a round profile that I like better than a square profile. In fact, I really like running cut spikes in soft conditions, and they are as square as can be. I think square profiles work best in soft conditions, but you need some degree of roundness in the dry so that your cornering knobs are well supported and not too tall.

My theories on progression of breakaway and drifting are not so well developed, I've leave them out...

Does Maxxis have a tire for everything? Well, I don't think they have a tire that works as well as a Muddy Mary in terms of grip in softer conditions. This new tire should be a step in the right direction.

I'm also very curious about the Specialized Hillbilly, as this tire uses a lot of the principles I've put forward above and I think should be good in a lot of conditions apart from rock (at least from what I can tell from pictures). Need to try it.

 

[WParsons]

Pslide, you'll love this tire because it has more of a square profile compared to most tires.

I agree totally with what you said about the HR, that in intermediate turns (in between standing straight up and laying over) it was not confident. I think most people would agree, that's why I increased the intermediate knob size and added that sipe to break up the flat surface a little and offer more flex.

The HR is a pretty bad rear tire unless you are riding in hero dirt. The rear should have a center block without a channel running down the middle. Rear braking is most often quite a bit different than front braking, so we may as well be using a tire that reflects that.

 

[Slater]

Yeah I thought I had a few things figured out about tires too, but it all kind of fell apart when I put this on the back of my bike and it worked great, surprisingly (got it for $14 or never would have bought it). This is on mostly dry/moist hardpack (SoCal winter), and of course braking performance is lacking. But it corners great.

 

[slowitdown]

Especially on hardpack, a stable cornering tire will allow you to push through the knobs and corner on the carcass. You don't want the tire to be fully supported on knobs, you want to be deforming the knobs so that they have high contact pressure and generate grip, but you want a lot of cornering load to be doing directly into the carcass rather than deforming through a big knob.

I think on the Minion, that channel allows you to corner on the carcass while the side knobs are giving you enough grip.

**********

Does Maxxis have a tire for everything? Well, I don't think they have a tire that works as well as a Muddy Mary in terms of grip in softer conditions. This new tire should be a step in the right direction.

When you say corner "on the carcass" do you mean physical contact between the ground/trailbed and the raw mold beneath/between the knobs?

Or are you talking about the tube-shaped carcass supporting the knobs and their contact patch (a function of PSI and physical structure of the carcass)?

To the extent a casing/carcass is intended to be a primary rolling surface, it is probably smart to cover it in a file pattern like the old Panaracer Mach SS or the current Kenda EC Happy Medium, unless the trail bed is concrete, slickrock, etc.

**********

Isn't the Swampthing similar enough (functionally) to the Muddy Mary?

**********

kidwoo, you should contact Bryan. seriously.

 

[-BB-]

what is that tire?

Never mind... WTB Prowler MX

 

[Pslide]

When you say corner "on the carcass" do you mean physical contact between the ground/trailbed and the raw mold beneath/between the knobs?

Or are you talking about the tube-shaped carcass supporting the knobs and their contact patch (a function of PSI and physical structure of the carcass)?

**********

Isn't the Swampthing similar enough (functionally) to the Muddy Mary?

**********

kidwoo, you should contact Bryan. seriously.

When I talk about carcass, I am talking about both of your definitions: The surface below the knobs which is supported by the whole tire and inflation pressure. Basically, I don't want to corner on knobs alone because that what gives a squirmy feeling and can give out on you easily. I want to be cornering on the carcass, with enough knobs to generate high contact pressure points to give me the grip I need for whatever surface I'm on (so the knob design will vary with the surface).

The Swampthing is far too round a profile for my liking. If you're thinking of running a Swampthing for soft/wet conditions, try a cut spike...it will blow it out of the water. Or a Muddy Mary for less sloppy but still soft conditions.

All my opinion though, tires are quite subjective!

 

[ride]

Sam and I talk to one another every once and a while...

Not only are our desks located about 20' from one another, we're neighbors as well... Talk about there goes the neighborhood!

It's been great reading this thread and seeing how much positive armchair feedback the new tire is receiving. In all seriousness though it will be a great addition to the Minion in our Maxxis tire options for varying conditions. I feel this tire will fill the void very well between a Minion, and a cut Wet Scream.

Lars

So you've talked to Lars? If yes, then you know he thinks pretty highly of the new tire. I think this will be a tire you'll enjoy running front and rear- maybe a set for loose and muddy, and a separate set of DHF's for dry??? Anyhow, you shouldn't have to wait too long for them- we've placed a sizable order from the factory.

The wear rate is similar to the original High Roller since the compounds used are the same, and the land-to-sea ratio (that's knob-to-void ratio) is similar. Oh, and today we finalized the whole tire name thing. I can't tell you yet, but the solution should satisfy everyone.

 

[Pslide]

Pslide, you'll love this tire because it has more of a square profile compared to most tires.

I agree totally with what you said about the HR, that in intermediate turns (in between standing straight up and laying over) it was not confident. I think most people would agree, that's why I increased the intermediate knob size and added that sipe to break up the flat surface a little and offer more flex.

The HR is a pretty bad rear tire unless you are riding in hero dirt. The rear should have a center block without a channel running down the middle. Rear braking is most often quite a bit different than front braking, so we may as well be using a tire that reflects that.

Yeah, I'd like to give the new tire a go. I ride quite varied terrain here in the Midwest and East Coast, so I think it will be quite versatile for where I'm at. I lived in the UK for 6 yrs and I think they will dig this tire as well, as will the PNW crew as someone mentioned.

 

[WParsons]

In all seriousness though it will be a great addition to the Minion in our Maxxis tire options for varying conditions. I feel this tire will fill the void very well between a Minion, and a cut Wet Scream.

Lars

Thanks. That's what I was going for.

 

[WParsons]

Shameful self promotion: I have a hundred ideas in my head about new designs based on actual performance, not on looks and perceived performance. Any tire companies out there want to give me a shot? I'm also an A level off road moto racer with some ideas floating around in my head, so I can pull dual duty if needed.

 

[slowitdown]

When I talk about carcass, I am talking about both of your definitions: The surface below the knobs which is supported by the whole tire and inflation pressure. Basically, I don't want to corner on knobs alone because that what gives a squirmy feeling and can give out on you easily. I want to be cornering on the carcass, with enough knobs to generate high contact pressure points to give me the grip I need for whatever surface I'm on (so the knob design will vary with the surface).

Yeah I hear you. "Squirmy knobs" reminds me of the original WTB WeirWolf, those angled edge knobs squirmed where I ride, and then when I lowered the PSI enough to have a sort of uniform squirminess, the whole tire felt vague and useless -- for me, for the way I ride. It was fine in a straight line, useless in corners unless the dirt was really soft & loamy... and I rarely encounter that condition.

The Swampthing is far too round a profile for my liking. If you're thinking of running a Swampthing for soft/wet conditions, try a cut spike...it will blow it out of the water. Or a Muddy Mary for less sloppy but still soft conditions.

I don't ride much loose&soft. What looseness I ride is mostly loose large rock, large enough that a slough ejection channel isn't that necessary. When I ride trails where there's a lot of loose duff, that stuff behaves a bit more like moon dust or loam, but only in the bike's tendency to float rather than stick.

I was asking because I really don't have any experience in terrain needing spikes or mud tires -- full knob, or cut down, either way.

All my opinion though, tires are quite subjective!

Yeah they are, but I find the subjectivity has most to do with two things:

* common trail type (loose, firm, intermediate, and what kinds of obstacles)

* rider's preferred cornering style

I had a back-n-forth on tire qualities with Wayne over at NSMB where he assured me the Ardent 2.4 is useless in soft conditions and good only for hardpack -- but it's fine for the softness and looseness I encounter, and I don't find it useful on hardpack (though the 2.25 is a great rear tire in all conditions for me).

kidwoo & I had an exchange on TGR several years ago, before I learned other ways of cornering, where he explained why the Minion DHF is so good. Back then I preferred the Nevegal but since then I've learned some new skills, ride a bit quicker, and find the Minion better. It's just a bit of overkill for most of my riding. For DH trails on a DH bike where I live, though, it's the best tire I've found.

I've had good experiences working with Bryan on the tires I've ridden. I think he listens to good (sensible, logical, well-explained) input on the designs. I also think his recent designs are working well (Ardent, Ikon, Aspen).

 

[WParsons]

I had a back-n-forth on tire qualities with Wayne over at NSMB where he assured me the Ardent 2.4 is useless in soft conditions and good only for hardpack -- but it's fine for the softness and looseness I encounter, and I don't find it useful on hardpack (though the 2.25 is a great rear tire in all conditions for me).

Hi.

The only Ardent I have ridden is a 2.4, and in the dry Kamloops, BC conditions it floats way too much when the slightest hint of soft ground appears. On the firmer stuff it really wasn't that bad. I could see a smaller 2.25 or even a 2.1 being much much greater for digging into soft ground. An Ardent in a 2.1 used for aggressive-terrain XC racing/riding would be a much better use for that tread pattern.

That's another tire that looks decent but is not entirely well thought out for what it was designed for. With a few simple fixes it could be much much better.

 

[Pslide]

Yeah they are, but I find the subjectivity has most to do with two things:

* common trail type (loose, firm, intermediate, and what kinds of obstacles)

* rider's preferred cornering style

Yeah, I think how hard you are pushing a tire is going to have a big impact on what kind of tire you prefer. What I'm describing above is when you are pushing your bike to the limits in a corner. If you are riding corners at 7/10ths then you're not going to encounter as much block squirm and you're going to be OK on a blocky tread pattern that faster riders might find sketchy. In fact, you might need too different tire designs for faster and slower riders...

Like you, my preferences have changed as I've gotten quicker. And I'm not even "pro" level quick.

 

[WParsons]

Yeah, I think how hard you are pushing a tire is going to have a big impact on what kind of tire you prefer. What I'm describing above is when you are pushing your bike to the limits in a corner. If you are riding corners at 7/10ths then you're not going to encounter as much block squirm and you're going to be OK on a blocky tread pattern that faster riders might find sketchy. In fact, you might need too different tire designs for faster and slower riders...

Like you, my preferences have changed as I've gotten quicker. And I'm not even "pro" level quick.

I raced the local Pro class for a few years and a lot of what I learned was from national and international level racers. But the guy who really opened my eyes was a sport level rider/racer who knew more about mtb tires than any "pro" I have ever met. What he had to say about mtb tires really made me think. I still look up to his knowledge base in that regard. In fact, many pros don't have the foggiest idea about what makes a good tire (ahem... DH-R).

On the moto side, I've had some good local pro off road racers recommend certain tires to me. Then I buy a set, try them, and proceed to fall on my face. You watch them ride those tires and they're doing the same thing.

So just because you're fast doesn't mean you know what it takes.

Have you ever watched a pro race and seen how some people set up their suspension? Makes me cringe sometimes.

 

[Pslide]

I raced the local Pro class for a few years and a lot of what I learned was from national and international level racers. But the guy who really opened my eyes was a sport level rider/racer who knew more about mtb tires than any "pro" I have ever met. What he had to say about mtb tires really made me think. I still look up to his knowledge base in that regard. In fact, many pros don't have the foggiest idea about what makes a good tire (ahem... DH-R).

On the moto side, I've had some good local pro off road racers recommend certain tires to me. Then I buy a set, try them, and proceed to fall on my face. You watch them ride those tires and they're doing the same thing.

So just because you're fast doesn't mean you know what it takes.

Have you ever watched a pro race and seen how some people set up their suspension? Makes me cringe sometimes.

Yeah, I agree totally. I am in the tire industry, and I can tell you right away that race car drivers do not make good tire evaluators. This is a different point though. My point was that you can't really judge what a tire does at the limit if you're not riding at the limit.

 

[slowitdown]

So just because you're fast doesn't mean you know what it takes.

A lot of people are very fast in spite of their ignorance on the technical side of riding, of bike setup, of psychological/mental landscapes.

Some of us are good at spatial relation, body awareness, technical detail, and how things actually work. We can be better test pilots/riders in many ways that a top-shelf racer or slopestyler or freerider might not be able to. Testing something to its breakdown limit is only one point of design and engineering.

As with all endeavors in life, where things really get useful is in the refinement process.

Some of the greatest athletic coaches have been people who stalled out in the race/competition game well before Top 10 or the like. They are great because they know how to gather information, analyze it, and make it relevant to the audience in question.

The vast majority of gear reviews I read on the Toobz suck donkey doo-dads. They are generic, they are highly subjective while pretending at objectivity, and they are useless for discerning why one should choose Part X over Part C. I find this true for MTB stuff as well as alpine & backcountry skiing stuff. When the review isn't a professional one that's too generic, it's by a fellow rider/skier who is using the review more to wave his male member around, and less to inform.

I'd say that MTB frame and component mfrs can advance their conception, design and refinement activities with input from those who are skilled at describing why something feels a given way, why it performs a given way. And from the looks of things on the Toobz, generally speaking there aren't many who can do that.

This thread has a few folks who seem able to, though.

 

[slowitdown]

Hi.

The only Ardent I have ridden is a 2.4, and in the dry Kamloops, BC conditions it floats way too much when the slightest hint of soft ground appears. On the firmer stuff it really wasn't that bad. I could see a smaller 2.25 or even a 2.1 being much much greater for digging into soft ground. An Ardent in a 2.1 used for aggressive-terrain XC racing/riding would be a much better use for that tread pattern.

That's another tire that looks decent but is not entirely well thought out for what it was designed for. With a few simple fixes it could be much much better.

The 2.4 Ardent is a completely different tire from the 2.25 Ardent, which has smaller knobs -- they're smaller in every dimension, height-width-depth. The jump from a 2.25 Ardent to a 2.4 Ardent is like moving from a 2.1 Aspen to a 2.25 Ardent. More tread in every way, but still a relatively open design.

I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was talking about subjectivity. In my general riding terrain (western MT/eastern WA/eastern ID) I ride mostly trails that lack loose granular, loose powdery, or loose loamy. When it's loose it's usually bigger shale & granite chunks or rocks sloughing downhill under your tires -- or it's collected pine needles and duff, which behave like roller bearings under your tires. Whether the 2.4 Ardent works better for me may be due to those conditions being different than Kamloops trails, or it may be due to how I corner and brake versus how you do.

 

[kidwoo]

Pslide: I agree with everything you've said with your geekery so far.

Since you mentioned it, let's look at the muddy mary.

This is one of the few tires schwalbe makes that isn't schizophrenic. There's nothing on this tire that contradicts itself. I'd like to see the sidknobs a little more stout and those rows of 3 center knobs tightened up to open the channel a little more but at least it's not fighting itself. All the side knobs angle the same way, and there's no ramping on the braking edge...etc. I don't know what direction schwalbe tells you to run this but it's obvious it should be rolling away from you in the pic. Side knobs, sipes and angles that form an arrow when looking at the top of the tire, work to push you in the direction you're steering when leaned over. That little bit of angle on these things points left when on the dirt and your bike is leaning left. Makes total sense. If you look at the sideknobs of a minion, they don't have the angle, but they do have a block on every other knob that forms the general idea...when on the dirt, an open area a the beginning that catches, and then a closed off finish that pushes you in the direction of your turn.

In contrast to something like this

Which way are you supposed to run this fvcking thing? It has angled sidenobs running in every direction except the one you want it to. It looks like someone puked confetti and made a tire based on what landed on the floor. Plus it has knobs in the way of the already crappily sparse sideknobs anyway so when it's rolling every inch gets lifted AWAY from the side knobs.

And every other centerknob row switches directions and also sipe relief. Is that for cupping dirt both braking AND pedaling? They (edit: used to) sell this as a DH tire. Plus even in the product CAD markup you can tell the profile is round. So when that thing is spinning fast as hell, you essentially have a slick. Awesome ain't it? This is a 2mph tire essentially.

I'll add this one too since that last one isn't in their dh lineup any more.

Based on the angle of the side knobs, this thing should be rolling towards you. And smaller square shaped center knobs look like they'd be good at cupping dirt with the litte V shape. All of them have that V shape actually so it should be obvious which direction has better braking where dirt is grabbed and held. But then what's with that ramped braking edge then? Somebody planning on having good cornering AND winning the skid contest at the end of a run? But okay, say it's supposed to be run in the other direction so those ramps are on the right side. Now you have sideknobs that cup dirt for pedaling but not as well as braking....this a dh tire remember. And then the sidenknobs are now angled left when the tire is pointing right....specifically the direction you're trying to NOT slide. Shouldn't matter that much because it's not like you're going to get to those sideknobs anyway they're so close together with the centers, that there's no channel to let dirt into the sideknobs anyway.
More coming......

 

[kidwoo]

Here's one some people (including me sort of) have been stoked on despite one glaringly stupid feature.

It's obvious they tried to copy at least the LOOK of a minion but seriously.....what the hell is with those sipes? The side knobs have a little bit of angle that matches rolling it the same way that would give you the bigger braking edge on the center knobs (toward you in the pic)....but those sipes point the opposite direction your tire will be turning. The minion center sipes have a subtle angle but at least they point the right way. This spec tire does squirm a bit on hard pack turns where you're not leaned over all the way to the side knobs.....that's why. It's not a huge deal but it's just fvcking dumb. If you're going to bother siping, do it in a direction that works with you not against you. Even just a straight sipe would have been better.

I'm obviously not the only one who realized it though because then they came out with this. This one obviously should be rolling away from you and literally everything in this pattern works to fuction that way. Only complaint I'd have with the butcher is making the profile more squared off to engage that channel sooner. Still looks like a ripping tire though.

 

[toodles]

All right.....everyone reading this: 2.3 minion EXO for your trail bike. Those 2.5s are a little big for a long distance pedal and the mold for a 2.3 already exists for the full dh version.

Attack!!!

Done. (PS Maxxis - fix the phone number field on the contact form to accept international numbers from Australian peeps)


On the tyre design subject, I'll stick my neck out and ask if I'm the only one who ever wished the DHF Minion had some intermediate knobs?

 

[WParsons]

Pslide: I agree with everything you've said with your geekery so far.

Since you mentioned it, let's look at the muddy mary.

This is one of the few tires schwalbe makes that isn't schizofrenic. There's nothing on this tire that contradicts itself. I'd like to see the sidknobs a little more stout and those rows of 3 center knobs tightened up to open the channel a little more but at least it's not fighting itself. All the side knobs angle the same way, and there's no ramping on the braking edge...etc. I don't know what direction schwalbe tells you to run this but it's obvious it should be rolling away from you in the pic. Side knobs, sipes and angles that form an arrow when looking at the top of the tire, work to push you in the direction you're steering when leaned over. That little bit of angle on these things points left when on the dirt and your bike is leaning left. Makes total sense. If you look at the sidenobs of a minion, they don't have the angle, but they do have a block on every other knob that forms the general idea...when on the dirt, an open area a the beginning that catches, and then a closed off finish that pushes you in the direction of your turn.

In contrast to something like this

Which way are you supposed to run this fvcking thing? It has angled sidenobs running in every direction except the one you want it to. It looks like someone puked confetti and made a tire based on what landed on the floor. Plus it has knobs in the way of the already crappily sparse sideknobs anyway so when it's rolling every inch gets lifted AWAY from the side knobs.

And every other centerknob row switches directions and also sipe relief. Is that for cupping dirt both braking AND pedaling? They (edit: used to) sell this as a DH tire. Plus even in the product CAD markup you can tell the profile is round. So when that thing is spinning fast as hell, you essentially have a slick. Awesome ain't it? This is a 2mph tire essentially.


More coming......

Dude, we think alike.

That Muddy Mary is a good, simply designed tire that functions very well. Its resembles a moto tire over a mtb tire, in a good way. Big square blocks for the right condition is sometimes all you need. I agree that the side knobs could use some alteration to break them up because as they are, they are way too uniform.

That other XC tire aberration serves virtually no purpose behind its design. Looks like someone got too happy with 3D modeling software.

 

[kidwoo]

Jesus I made a lot of spelling errors in that mess.....

That other XC tire aberration serves virtually no purpose behind its design. Looks like someone got too happy with 3D modeling software.

It blows me away that so many horrendous tires like this get made. It's not cheap to fabricate molds from what I hear.

Like I said earlier.....so many companies ARE just completely guessing at this. And it's really not that complicated.

I think a well designed tire being described by anyone selling it who understands a little of this stuff goes a lot farther in a bike shop than 'huh huh....that looks cool'. But you can't even explain something like that tire above.

 

[MDJ]

A lot of people are very fast in spite of their ignorance on the technical side of riding, of bike setup, of psychological/mental landscapes.

Very true, and a lot of fast people could care less about whether the angle of a sipe is off by 1.5 degrees from optimal. I for one - and no I'm not insinuating that I am top 10 WC caliber - could care less about why a tire works. Or whether 2 or 3 clicks of LSC is optimal. It just doesn't matter to me. Sure, I can tell the difference between tires, but I can adapt to differences and live with minor flaws. If I don't like one, I will run another.

Now there are downsides to this approach. I know that If I spent more time to make sure my suspension is perfectly dialed, or if I have my tire pressure dialed to the nearest tenth of a psi, then I may actually be tiny fraction faster. The flip side is that I get really tired of hearing the really geeky guys always complaining that they can't ride fast because everything is not perfect. Do you really need to stop mid-ride to adjust the angle of the same bars you've been running for 2 years???

slow - none of this is directed at you. And don't get me wrong - it's awesome that everyone here is geeking out on tires. It is because of people like you that help equipment progress. You guys think so I don't have to (or because I can't). Keep it going. Maybe Maxxis will name a tire the Ridemonkey.

 

[kidwoo]

On the tyre design subject, I'll stick my neck out and ask if I'm the only one who ever wished the DHF Minion had some intermediate knobs?

Blasphemy


With that squared off profile we keep talking about with minions, you already have good engagement of the sideknob channel pretty early. And the sides are high enough that even the OUTER edge of the sidknobs continue to grab once you get stupid leaned. Putting in 'intermediate' knobs would just get in the way and keep the tire higher above the dirt and not digging into it. You'd essentially close off the channel that makes that tire so good. That's why nevegals suck. They fight the creation of their own channel.

What about the minion are you thinking that would actually improve?

 

[Pslide]

Schwalbe often runs their directionality opposite of the industry norm, especially in their side knobs.

The Muddy Mary is rolling towards you in the pic. The Big Betty is rolling away from you. (You'd think they'd have uniform pictures!)

The ramps on Schwalbe are always on the leading edge, for better rolling.

There is usually only a slight directionality to the side lugs. Unlike Kidwoo, the jury is out for me on the opposite directionality they chose. I drew the pattern out on a piece of paper, bend it around like a tire, simulate cornering action and how the knobs work in the tire patch, and I'm not sure which convention is best...I can see some merits to both. Certainly the conventional arrow method like Kidwoo likes makes sense to provide a strong edge for braking in a corner. But I also like how the knob rolls into the contact patch of the Schwalbe design.

I suppose I could reverse my Muddy Marys to see if I can feel the difference, but I doubt I could. Maybe on a good day on a very repeatable trail with very repeatable conditions. Would be a good experiment.

 

[Pslide]

PS - By the way Kidwoo, good posts - I am in agreement with just about everything you're saying.

 

[kidwoo]

I can geek out on this crap for way longer than is healthy.

With regards to the directional thing this is what I'm trying to convey though: If that's the way schalbe is telling you run those tires, they're idiots. There is a direction in which a sideknob points the way you are turning, or at the very least just creates a flat wall with no directional bias. Going in the opposite direction of that arrow pattern pushes your tire out from under you. There's no two ways about it, 'industry norm' or not. It's physics, not an opinion.

I could see where wanting this for a rear could be beneficial where you want to break loose but it's just dumb for a front. It has nothing to do with braking either. Leaned over, off the brakes, your tire will want to drift the opposite way you're leaning if the sidknob angles don't match or accentuate the direction of the turn.

Michelin was pretty bad about this too from what I remember. Then it was like some revelation when people started running them opposite the markings. If you understand how tires work, it's obvious which way they should be run (if they're designed well).

For what it's worth, this very topic is why I started geeking out on tires years ago. There were (and still are) several tires out there that recommend different directions front and rear. Most of those would end up washing when in the rear and I wanted to know why. Off the brakes on a 'clean' turn, the same principles apply. The direction of a knob either helps, is neutral, or works against you. You can't have the opposite angle of a beneficial angle ALSO be beneficial when it's pointing the opposite way. A turn is a simple goal and there are only so many vectors that aid in that. The opposite hinders.

 

[WParsons]

Its as important (if not more) to think of how the tire handles both stand up and corner braking. You want predictability and the ability to speed check without having your tire lock up.

You want a rear tire that has a good center block sans channel (or very tiny one) with thought to how the tire will bite in turns under braking. No, not berms, but flat or off camber turns. There you can usually see how well those intermediate and side knobs come into play.

That's why the DH-R sucks so hard - Stand up braking. Its got a massive channel down the middle with an angled knobs that promote the tire to float or drift under heavy braking. Its truly a scary tire to ride down steep stuff.

Like I said, the Excavator is the only decent rear tire I've ever used. It doesn't say much because the amount of good rear tires out there I can count on 2-3 fingers. But at least they have some good blocks that not only bite in medium/soft dirt but on hard pack too.

I always liked the old Comp32 as a rock/hard pack tire, but if only they made it in a smaller size. If I can recall correctly, didn't the old Comp16 have the arrow on backwards? If that was the case they recommended that ramped edges were the braking edges. lol..... now that's some crazy stuff right there.

 

[kidwoo]

That's one area where I think you and I would disagree WP. That may have just as much to do with dirt conditions and 'riding style' whatever that is.... Most of my riding is in crappy, super dry moon dust type dirt where I just gave up years ago and just look for tires that have good support AFTER you've already broken them loose.....you know.....the drifting 'slam pocket'

I would argue that even with something like a minion dhf, partially leaned over, you're still getting enough bite between the edges of the center and sideknobs for decent braking, even though you're technically right over the channel. And in most cases, that channel is so beneficial for cornering, it's not worth messing with. With the dhf in particular, there aren't a whole lot of angles where a good portion of the knobs aren't engaged (square profile, yadaa yadda).

 

[Pslide]

If I can recall correctly, didn't the old Comp16 have the arrow on backwards? If that was the case they recommended that ramped edges were the braking edges. lol..... now that's some crazy stuff right there.

Yeah, I think you're right! That tire had pretty tall, squirmy side blocks too, but was good in the soft stuff. I only ever ran it back when I was pretty slow (8 yrs ago).

I've got a brand new Excavator in the garage, guess I'm gonna have to try that out as a rear tire. Was just going to e-bay it, lol.

Kidwoo, you've pretty much convinced me on the side lug angle. I've never had an issue with my Muddy Marys (except at Seven Spring on hardpack...dumb tire choice though, so that doesn't count). I suppose in the softer stuff it's a bit less critical, which is what I've been riding most.

So then, since my MM are pointing the wrong way I'm going to need some new rubber... What is everyone's expert opinion on this tire?