Quantcast

Opinions On Tires...

  • Come enter the Ridemonkey Secret Santa!

    We're kicking off the 2024 Secret Santa! Exchange gifts with other monkeys - from beer and snacks, to bike gear, to custom machined holiday decorations and tools by our more talented members, there's something for everyone.

    Click here for details and to learn how to participate.

Which should work best?

  • Blue Groove 2.35 Front, Nevegal Rear 2.35

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Nevegal 2.35 Front and Rear

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • WTB Weirwold 2.5 Front and Rear

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Some other Combination...

    Votes: 7 35.0%

  • Total voters
    20

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Ok, in the near future I have some serious riding ahead. This will include a trip to: Pisgah NC, Denver CO, Moab, and possibly Fruita if Im up for it, all withing the month of MAY!
Im currently riding a Kenda Blue Groove 2.35 Front and a Kenda Nevegal 2.35 rear. They are about done for, but Im going to make them last until just before the Pisgah trip.
So here's my question: Do I stick with this combo, is it an acceptable one for a variety of terrains as I have listed? It really works well here in TN, but Im not sure how it will do on the slick stuff. Also, I really like the idea of the ramped knobbies on the nevegal, so Im thinking maybe nevegal 2.35 front and rear...?
Also, while searching for light tires, I noticed that the WTB Weir-Wolf 2.5's are actually LIGHTER than the kenda's Im running. Would I get more rolling resisitance from the width of the WTB or the Weight of the Kenda? And is the Kenda acceptable for a variety of terrains such as Im about to encounter.
Feel free to opine, any help is appreciated.
 

bjanga

Turbo Monkey
Dec 25, 2004
1,356
0
San Diego
BS, I am running the BG/nevegal combo too (Im on a haro). The BG works great for loose dusty southern california, but I would think that the nevegals would have a greater surface area for any rocks or hardpack you would encounter.

EDIT: I have heard that the weirs do not hook up in wet. Can anyone verify?
 

maxyedor

<b>TOOL PRO</b>
Oct 20, 2005
5,496
3,141
In the bathroom, fighting a battle
bjanga said:
EDIT: I have heard that the weirs do not hook up in wet. Can anyone verify?
I'm on my second pair or Weirs on my trail bike, after an unsuccesfull atempt to run tubless (A Kenda started to rip down the middle), They hook up great in the wet, untill it gets really soupy or if your in wt clay as they can tend to pack up.
 

jacksonpt

Turbo Monkey
Jul 22, 2002
6,791
59
Vestal, NY
Not sure what the terrain is like in those places, but I've been very disappointed with the Nevegals in loose/wet conditions. If there's a chance you'll hit anything wet, run the weirwolves (though I'm not sure I'd run them in a 2.5, but whatever).

I've hard the kendas kick ass on dry rocks, so they would probably be your best bet on the dry rocks out west.

What about a weirwolf in teh front and a nevegal in the back?
 

jacksonpt

Turbo Monkey
Jul 22, 2002
6,791
59
Vestal, NY
bjanga said:
EDIT: I have heard that the weirs do not hook up in wet. Can anyone verify?
Here in upstate NY, the weirwolves are great. We have very sloppy conditions in the spring early summer and they do very well... FAR better than my Nevegals and about the same, maybe slightly better than my Cinders.
 

McGRP01

beer and bikes
Feb 6, 2003
7,793
0
Portland, OR
jacksonpt said:
Not sure what the terrain is like in those places, but I've been very disappointed with the Nevegals in loose/wet conditions.
It still amazes me that you say that. :confused:

On my trail bike I run a 2.35 BG in from and a 2.1 Nevegal rear. They hook up real well for me in all conditions. On my DH bike I run 2.5 Nevegals F&R. I like the fact that they're super predictable, and I run them in everything except super muddy conditions.

That being said, I'd run the Neve's front and rear where you're headed. Have fun!!
 

urbaindk

The Real Dr. Science
Jul 12, 2004
4,819
0
Sleepy Hollar
I ran 2.3 Timberwolves for about a year. I was very pleased. They hook up on rocky loose stuff really well and did well in wet conditions. They are much "knobbier" than the weirwolves. They feel really slow on hard pack and pavement though. I was running the folding "race" version. Very light weight. When I first started running them I was getting a lot of pinch flats because the side walls are rather thin. I upped the air pressure and had no more problems. After a year the rear tire developed a small tear in the sidewall. Nothing major. I would run them again if I could find them on sale somewhere. (I'm a cheap bastard)

This year I have a couple of different sets of tires I picked up on various sales here and there, 2.5 IRC trailbears, 2.35 Maxxis Mobsters, and 2.4 KRads. I'm going to try running different combinations depending on where I ride. We'll see how that goes. I'll probably end up running the IRC tires most of the time.
 

jacksonpt

Turbo Monkey
Jul 22, 2002
6,791
59
Vestal, NY
McGRP01 said:
It still amazes me that you say that. :confused:
from what I've heard, trails are pretty rocky out where you are - perhaps that's the difference. Down here, it's all hardpack and roots. Generally speaking, as a real all-around tire, my Cinders are clearly better than the nevegals. I say that though I'm not yet ready to give up on the nevegals... I'll run them some more this summer as the trails dry out before I make my final decision.
 

Wumpus

makes avatars better
Dec 25, 2003
8,161
153
Six Shooter Junction
I liked the BG last winter on the wet slimestone around here, but not during the powder dry conditions we experienced during the summer. They were constantly breaking loose. Switched to a weirwolf(2.35) on the front and things were much better. Running trailbears on the rear -- I'm sure there are better tires but not for $15.
 

McGRP01

beer and bikes
Feb 6, 2003
7,793
0
Portland, OR
jacksonpt said:
from what I've heard, trails are pretty rocky out where you are - perhaps that's the difference. Down here, it's all hardpack and roots. Generally speaking, as a real all-around tire, my Cinders are clearly better than the nevegals. I say that though I'm not yet ready to give up on the nevegals... I'll run them some more this summer as the trails dry out before I make my final decision.
I hear ya'... Hopefully we'll get a chance to ride each other's "home trails" over the summer and put them to the test! :)
 

Jim Mac

MAKE ENDURO GREAT AGAIN
May 21, 2004
6,352
282
the middle east of NY
Weirwolves: I have had bad luck with them, ripped through2 sidewalls.

Minions: Great in the super tacky version but i have only used them for dh, probably too heavy for xc.

I'm currently running WTB Timberwolf Race 2.5's on both my trail bikes in the front. They are too big for some forks but offer great traction and are much lighter than the dh version.

I run a Tioga DH 2.3 in the rear on my SS and this combo seems to work well on rocks, roots, etc.

I am waiting on delivery for a Maxxis Advantage 2.4 to try out as a rear for my full susp. bike, so I will give a report on that soon!
 

golgiaparatus

Out of my element
Aug 30, 2002
7,340
41
Deep in the Jungles of Oklahoma
BurlyShirley said:
Ok, in the near future I have some serious riding ahead. This will include a trip to: Pisgah NC, Denver CO, Moab, and possibly Fruita if Im up for it, all withing the month of MAY!
Im currently riding a Kenda Blue Groove 2.35 Front and a Kenda Nevegal 2.35 rear. They are about done for, but Im going to make them last until just before the Pisgah trip.
So here's my question: Do I stick with this combo, is it an acceptable one for a variety of terrains as I have listed? It really works well here in TN, but Im not sure how it will do on the slick stuff. Also, I really like the idea of the ramped knobbies on the nevegal, so Im thinking maybe nevegal 2.35 front and rear...?
Also, while searching for light tires, I noticed that the WTB Weir-Wolf 2.5's are actually LIGHTER than the kenda's Im running. Would I get more rolling resisitance from the width of the WTB or the Weight of the Kenda? And is the Kenda acceptable for a variety of terrains such as Im about to encounter.
Feel free to opine, any help is appreciated.
Out of those I like the weirwolf. But not in the rear... I like stouter knobs for the back wheel... less change of one of the knobs peeling off.
 

manhattanprjkt83

Rusty Trombone
Jul 10, 2003
9,660
1,237
Nilbog
alot of those tires you listed might halfway suck in moab, big tall squishy knobs have no place in moab, you will end up on your face...I just returned and a lower profile wide half worn tire will hook up the best. If you are lookig for a damn good all around tire i would check out the maxxis advantage maybe a 2.4f/2.1 rear set up, that tire is damn light and would prob serve you better in alot of the try terrain you are planning on riding.

The nevagal and wtb are both killer wet weather/soft stuff tires, but we are approaching summer, and alot of the trails will be dried out.
 

berkshire_rider

Growler
Feb 5, 2003
2,552
10
The Blackstone Valley
McGRP01 said:
It still amazes me that you say that. :confused:

On my trail bike I run a 2.35 BG in from and a 2.1 Nevegal rear. They hook up real well for me in all conditions. On my DH bike I run 2.5 Nevegals F&R. I like the fact that they're super predictable, and I run them in everything except super muddy conditions.

That being said, I'd run the Neve's front and rear where you're headed. Have fun!!
:stupid:

I find the Weirwolves to pack up with mud easy, and not work any where near as well as the Nevegal's. I trust my Nevegal's when cornering and climbing exposed rock way more then the WTB's. I have only run the 2.35's and 2.5 DH versions of the Nevegals, though. It's possible the 2.1's are narrow enough so they react completely different on non-rocky terrain.