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.
I mounted new Schwalbe tires on my MTB. A Nobby Nic 2.4” on the front, and a Wicked Will 2.4” on the rear. Once mounted on 30mm internal width wheels, both tires measured 2.25” wide.
I’ll leave them at 30psi in a warm room for a few days and see if they plump up a bit, but I doubt they’ll increase by 0.15” each.
Note: the bead-to-bead width on each tire was 152mm. Adding the internal wheel width of 30mm to get 182mm, then dividing by pi gives a pretty close estimate of the eventual width of the tire at 2.28”. I think someone mentioned this approach up-thread, and it estimated the width of these tires pretty well - within 1mm. Not a bad calculation to have handy if you’re buying tires in person and can measure the bead-to-bead width.
That’s my issue with Schwalbe. They seem to do everything else right except for the severely undersized casing sizes. This in an era where rim widths are fairly stable, so they don’t even have that excuse.
To me, casing volume is becoming more and more one of the main performance attributes for XC and Schwalbe really falls behind here. These might sound like minute differences, but these casing sizes actually imply significant air volume differences. Between a 2.5 and a 2.25 casing there’s a 20% difference in section area.
All of my Schwabe’s measure pretty close to true on 30mm internal wheels.
Your psi is too low. I’d recommend inflating to maximum allowable psi for a week and checking every few days to ensure psi hasn’t dropped. My 50mm initially measured 49mm and stretched to almost 51mm. So I’d expect your 2.4 to get pretty close.
Increase of 1.5mm width overnight. Let’s see where they end after a few days.
My Rick 2.4 Speed weigh 770 and 764 grams. They are both undersized at 2.3" on my 30mm id rims.
For comparison, my Hutchinson Python Race 2.4 weigh around 615 grams each and measure a true 2.4 inch on the exact same rims…
So the Python Race are 150 grams lighter, per tyre, while measuring true to size.
This is the main reason that the Rick are my first, and probably my last, Schwalbe tyres ever.
Understandable, although for me they measure about 2.4 on my 30mm internal wheels and the weight isn’t a major concern considering I got through numerous races with no issues.
Hopefully the Pythons hold up and I might try them pending the BRR results.
I ran the Python Race all summer long without any issues.
I use the Rick as my ‘winter tyre’, since they offer better corner grip when it’s damp and cold at the same time.
The Hutchinson had superb grip in summerish conditions though (temperature has an influence, they are not too happy when it’s cold)
Nice!
Looking at the tread pattern, Is the Rick a direct comparison or would the 2.35 TB be a better comparison?
Where did you get your Python race’s?
Alltricks and Bikeinn has it on stock, Bike24 had it last week, but now its out of stock
let’s hope it will make this month’s winning list on BRR, really-really interested in the measured numbers…
VOTE
And those 150g less in wheight are not at the cost of less anti flat protection?
Im asking because between less 150g marginal gain across a mtb race I guess having for instance twice the flats around the season and going DNF in a couple of races might just not worth it.