Dang where did you see that??
It’s been mentioned a variety of times, pro racers been seen with prototypes 2.2 and 2.4, and it’s in a thread here somewhere that Conti employees have verified it when approached.
Not that it will be the “Race King”, or even the exact same compound (we don’t know) but they are supposed to be releasing a new 2.4" XC Race Tire, I think March announcement IIRC? Maybe? It’s probably in this thread somewhere above…
Let’s hope they don’t screw up a good thing.
Folks who use inserts, do you run them all the time or only when a course calls for them? Any general thoughts on performance and whether they’re worth it?
I’ve never gotten a flat on a MTB (guessing a combination of typical terrain + high volume / low pressure tires + having a lower bodyweight?) so haven’t really felt the need to use them, but curious about others’ experience.
I’ve gotten flats + rim strikes on my gravel bike so could see them making sense there.
I run an insert all the time in my rear tire. It’s a pain to swap the insert in / out, so I just leave it in all the time. I use the Vittoria Air Liner Light, so I’m not adding a lot of weight. I don’t know how much it impacts rolling resistance, but it’s worth it for the flat prevention.
I think it’s very dependent on the terrain you ride. During MTB season, I ride rocky terrain at least once per week where the inserts are very helpful. There’s other trails I ride that are packed dirt where the inserts aren’t needed.
Plus, depends on how aggressively / fast you are riding on the terrain.
If you’ve never had a flat on your MTB, that’s probably due to your local terrain being more tire friendly (plus maybe some luck). So you may not need an insert. But if you plan to ride rockier stuff, an insert is worthwhile.
Thanks, that’s helpful. This maybe sounds silly, but do you have a photo of the rocky terrain where you find them most helpful? I’m just curious to visualize the exact type of terrain you’re talking about, as I ride rocky stuff here and there, but it may not be your level of rocky.
Here’s the Nate Hills version making it look easy.
Here’s the more mortal version.
Even with an insert, I pinch flatted on this trail this past summer.
I’ve taken to running them all the time front and rear. I can’t notice any negative impact to ride quality, and I’ve had Leadville as my target event the past 2 years and now a third, and I’ve seen plenty of flats and cracked rims on those descents, and this allows me to run a lower pressure with more confidence. A lot of my local trails have a bunch of rocky parts too.
I ran Ray/Burt at Leadville this year.
Next time around (Stage Race when I’m 59) I’ll run Rick/Burt or. Rick/Rick.
Always run Vittoria Airliner Light XC in my Carbon wheels.
I’ve heard a few have mentioned running Ralph/Rick as a good combo for XCM. I’m going to try this once the weather improves in a few months.
Random observation - its really odd how much disdain there is for the ray/ralph on the MTBR race tire threads, and the appreciation for them (while wishing they were bigger) here.
On the other hand, not holding out hope they come out with a bigger one, and I’ve been loving riding these 2.6 Boosters. I cant provide an actual review on them yet, because I’ve only ridden them on frozen dirt roads, but my hopes are high, as I think the benefits of high volume will work really well for me being a larger, aggressive rider.
That said, I’m excited to see what Conti comes out with for bigger race kings, and the specialized captains (I like the ground control a fair bit for fun combined with decent speed, so hopeful).
In comparison to MTBR, the TrainerRoad forum is more likely to have serious racers and those dedicated to structured training. Additionally here, imperial data analysis and other unbiased information is valued over marketing and popularity.
MTBR tends to have more casual racers/riders and influenced by what’s popular and/or what the pro’s are doing. There is a lot of misinformation as well of “this is what I do and it’s awesome”, without any context, comparisons or analysis. Furthermore, on MTBR there is an absence of understanding that pro’s run what they’re sponsored by, not necessarily what is best particularly to amateurs. Pro’s have an unbelievable ability to handle their bike and typically have ridden the race course multiple times, where amateurs more often are riding blind.
A lot of people here drink the brr koolaid.
It’s not a lot of people, but rather a few people that nonstop talk and request about it. That being said, it’s the only empirical data that exists to compare tires. So although BRR is probably the least relevant for MTB rather than road and gravel, it’s not completely useless.
I’m a fan of Ray Burt and ray Ralph, but, I will consider other tires because they are leetle tires. Fast and good grip though
BRR is the best we have for rolling resistance and puncture ratings, and is directionally pretty good. Conversely there’s a lot of people that rail on it as garbage in some places because it isn’t perfect in every sense.
Completely agree though it’s very course and skill dependent how much those matter to you. Certain courses the handling characteristics will be much more important.
I think brr is not the best but the only testing protocol I know of that is capable of replicable results and showing heterogeneity. Observation shows it is pretty accurate for road tires but I don’t see the same evidence on off-road and XC in particular. For example, non-sponsored competitive riders don’t gravitate towards top rated tires on XC the way road riders gravitate towards GT 5000 and Vittoria graphene (I don’t know all the specifics so I am gonna leave it at that). While I don’t have data on non-tire-sponsored competitive riders I do have some observational evidence, plus my personal experience also show, at the very least, that top performing tires on brr are not systematically and perceivably faster than tires 10-15 spots below. That doesn’t mean that brr testing is useless, by any means. All I’m saying is brr’s XC data doesn’t show empirically, not from what I’ve seen and experienced. In fact, the last racing ralph I got was just to make sure I was not missing something, leaving watts on the trail. I really like how it rides 85% of the time. I can even say they feel fast but my data shows otherwise. Seems to me like we need better testing or I need to find a tire I love so much that I’ll stop wondering.
I don’t think usage will line up to BRR in general because traction and handling is so important for XC in general and I don’t think their testing there is as applicable / useful as the rolling resistance and puncture resistance tests. If you were to look at longer gravel and rolling-resistance focused XC where subjective “handling” isn’t quite as important, I bet we would see tires line up a lot more with their testing, just a guess. Or at least starting to gravitate in that direction.
On the road - it’s really much more rolling resistance focused.
Maybe the way to say it is, BRR isn’t the best, but it’s the best we have…
I think people recommend what THEY like for THEIR conditions.
If you are riding wet, mudy, rooty trails vs. the dry sandy loose trails you’re going to like, and recommend, a different tire. Some people like more grip (me) some people prefer a “feel fast” low profile. Some people really push the limits of their bike and tires when descending and so flat protection is a priority, others not so much so a supple casing is preferred.
I think because of this you are never going to get a consensus on the “best” tire. But I do appreciate people’s take and it helps me make decisions!
Like others said, BRR is not without it’s flaws, but it’s virtually the only source of consistent information. They are also pretty transparent about the protocols, and test for dimensions, wet grip and puncture resistance. Moreover, their relative results tend to correlate well to real world tests.
Some jump in and say something like “yeah, but nothing about a drum test matters on a rock garden or a rooted singletrack”. Sure, XC conditions ar more complex than smooth road. But rolling resistance even in smooth pavement can matter a lot in XCM and longer courses in general. I’ve had 100km courses with 20km of pavement. Some of my favourite alpine climbs have road/smooth gravel sections.
How fast a tire is depends on how it’s attributes play on your riding conditions. Of your conditions are nothing but deep mud or an endless rock garden then you probably don’t care about rolling resistance that much compared to other attributes.
About the Racing Ray/Ralph combo, they certainly have very good characteristics under certain conditions. They roll (and test) very fast on smooth surfaces, the thread is quite durable and the Ray is a good wet tire. But, in my experience, they severely lack volume, which makes them slower on rougher surfaces and the Ralph behaviour is way worse on the wet/muddy than what the thread suggests.
A lot of folks seem to struggle balancing ride feel, technical sources like BRR, anecdotal data like forums, and person experience. There is no single source, which is always what some folks want.
BRR is just a another data point. I have found somethings very helpful from them, but just weigh it the way I want to.
I also think the mental side is important. If you look at a tire tread, and think there’s no way that will work for me, there’s a chance you are right, and it doesn’t work for your riding style, but also a chance your mind wont let it work for you. Example, the vittoria terreno mix tires were quite popular in CX for a bit, my prior experiences had me very un-trusting of the griffo tread style, and this was somehow worse looking to me. I tested them anyways, and never got on. I want to think it was that the tires didn’t work for me, but it could have been the prior experiences with the griffos that didnt allow the confidence to be there.