Still not 2.4 though, and that’s disappointing
Especially since I just had 2.35 fast traks that measured exactly 2.3 as well. I’m not that concerned but I did expect a volume boost with the 2.4 size.
Today, I tested the Schwalbe Rick 2.4 (Speed compound, tan sidewalls) vs the Hutchinson Python Race 2.4 (only available in one version).
Two sets of tyres that were recently tested by BRR and that I both happen to own.
I wanted to find out, once and for all, how useful BRR mountain bike tyre rolling resistance tests actually are compared to real-world conditions.
Test conditions:
The weather was almost completely windless, around 48 degrees Fahrenheit or 9 degrees Celsius, and I used my usual test section of fireroad. Roll down from a standstill without any pedaling.
The surface corresponds to Silca’s Category 2 gravel type. Speeds vary from around 7 mph (first part), to maybe 12 mph for the middle section and around 4 to 5 mph for the last part.
My stopwatch-measured results in this comparison are completely different from those of BRR, but I wasn’t expecting anything else…
First of all:
BRR measures a casing width of 56 mm for the Rick, but on my 30 mm internal width rims, they measure 58 mm or 2.28 inches. According to BRR, the Python Race also measures 56 mm, but on my 30 mm rims, they come in at nearly 61 mm / exactly 2.39 inches! So, the Python Race is clearly wider than the Rick.
However, both of my Ricks also weigh a full 150 grams more per tyre than both my Python Races.
Secondly, and far more importantly:
At the 25 PSI / 1.7 bar pressure that BRR uses on their steel drum, they measure a rolling resistance of 18.5 watts for the Rick and a ‘staggering’ 23.5 watts for the Python Race.
If you calculate the percentage difference from these numbers, the Python Race would have 27% more rolling resistance than the Rick.
If that were true on actual trails, the Hutchinsons should be significantly slower than the Rick. But in the real world, the difference is much smaller than that…
So today, I tested both under identical conditions, with the same tyre pressure for both the Schwalbe Rick 2.4 and the Hutchinson Python Race 2.4: 17 PSI / 1.2 bar rear and 16 PSI / 1.1 bar front.
The test consisted of 15 coast-down runs with the Rick, followed by a quick tyre swap to the Hutchinsons on the same 30 mm rims, and 15 runs with these as well.
I excluded a few outliers (both faster and slower) to eliminate external influences, leaving me with 11 valid runs for one tyre and 12 for the other.
And now, the results:
The Rick had an average time of 36.51 seconds, while the Python Race came in at an average of 37.21 seconds—a difference of just 1.92%.
That’s a barely measurable difference in speed. Yes, BRR’s results suggest that the Rick rolls faster than the Python Race, and that is indeed the case.
However, the huge differences shown in their test simply don’t translate to real-world riding.
The Python Race is indeed slower, so BRR’s results are correct in that regard. However, the huge differences shown in their test are barely relevant in practice. In the real world, on real trails (mind you, this was just category 2 gravel) the difference is less than 2%.
On rougher terrain (Silca 3 and especially 4), the difference will be even smaller or may even turn in favor of the Python Race.
FYI:
I’m posting this on MTBR’s 2025 race tyre thread and TrainerRoad’s XC Race tyre thread.
15 Likes
I spent a few minutes calculating all that stuff and posted on the MTBR thread But wanna mention here also.
Your results end up with a spread of about .0015 CRR values.
That’s about the same Delta you have at bicycle rolling resistance and also similar to the Delta that I’ve had off-road with mtb tires that are very similar size
Good work. I’m sure you spent a while on that test, but the results seem pretty good
7 Likes
So I might be misreading @JoeK1ng ‘s post, but it seemed like there was a smaller difference in the real world test compared to the BRR numbers, at least in terms of the percentages.
Is it that the way BRR converts CRR to watts based on a higher speed? Or some other assumption? Or?
He didn’t post wattages, just seconds per test. Calculating CRR values bridges the gap so you can compare.
.0015 CRR spread over a typical 90’ XCO race is worth 1-2 minutes to make it a broad range.
4 Likes
That’s similar to my view. I like viewing the CRR savings as either watts or personally speaking, time change over an endurance event.
2 Likes
Since the ricks are 150g heavier per tire and you are doing a rolling downhill test I imagine the weight is playing a big role in this
For anybody struggling to reconcile the % change in CRR in the Bicycle Rolling Resistance tests with the much smaller % change in rolldown times, I want to suggest a simple thought experiment:
Imagine a tyre manufacturer somehow creates a tyre that magically has no rolling resistance. The CRR improvement would be 100%. Would the rolldown times then also improve by 100%? i.e. would the ~36 second rolldown time become zero seconds using the zero rolling resistance tyre, with the bike & rider instantly teleporting themselves to the bottom of the hill? Even in that perfect rolling resistance world it would probably still take 25-30 seconds, maybe more, to roll down the hill.
4 Likes
I also like the Watt-saving method of expressing rolling resistance changes. The values provided by BRR are for 42.5kg normal load per wheel and 18 mph, but those Watt values can be easily scaled to slower MTB speeds or heavier/lighter riders, to values that are relevant to any particular person.
A lot of the comments in this thread, and other threads, have questioned whether the BRR results are relevant to MTB and or gravel riding. The good work done recently by @jkarrasch shows that the CRR differences between tyres having a similar width exhibit very similar CRR differences when ridden off-road. The CRR values on dirt are much higher than on the steel drum, of course, but the ranking and differences are maintained. This shouldn’t be surprising, because the trye hysteresis losses that the drum measures are still happening on dirt, contributing to the total rolling resistance, it’s just that there are a bunch of other losses that the drum can’t measure.
An excerpt from John’s website:
5 Likes
Okay, it was so hard for me to follow all of this and I had to make these results easier to read. Hopefully someone else appreciates it also;
Test Conditions:
- Weather: Windless, 48°F (9°C)
- Surface: Silca’s Category 2 gravel type
- Method: Roll down from a standstill without pedaling
Findings:
- Tire Measurements:
- Schwalbe Rick: 58 mm on 30 mm rims, 150 grams heavier per tire
- Hutchinson Python Race: 61 mm on 30 mm rims
- BRR Test Results:
- Rick: 18.5 watts rolling resistance at 25 PSI
- Python Race: 23.5 watts rolling resistance at 25 PSI (27% more than Rick)
- Real-World Test Results:
- Rick: Average time of 36.51 seconds
- Python Race: Average time of 37.21 seconds (1.92% slower than Rick)
Conclusion:
- BRR’s results show the Rick rolls faster than the Python Race, which is true in real-world conditions.
- However, the difference in rolling resistance is much smaller in practice (less than 2%) compared to BRR’s tests.
- On rougher terrain, the difference may be even smaller or favor the Python Race.
2 Likes
Selfishly waiting on John to test Rick’s so I can figure out my Leadville tire 
1 Like
Extrapolating out his previous testing, BRR’s data and using my own experience with the Rick, I expect them test pretty quick.
Rick F / Rick R or Ray F / Rick R. Just depends on how much tread you want on the front.
1 Like
I’m currently running Rekon Race F/R. So I was hoping to picking my next faster rolling tire soon so I can get some time to be comfortable on them.
If the drum is to be trusted whatever I pick will be faster than Rekon races, probably.
1 Like
No. The difference in CRR is quite literally identical to bicycle rolling resistance. It’s just mixing up all the units that makes it seem like this weird situation
4 Likes
2.2" Race King. Done and Done. Faster than the Rick and plenty of tire for Leadville unless you’re the type to send it and ride hard down Powerline, Columbine, and Sugarloaf (Which you don’t need to and shouldn’t do unless you’re a pro…)
3 Likes
I do really like hauling ass downhill and I’m a chonk, so I prefer 2.4.
1 Like
I’m still pretty into the new Peyote XC Race in 2.4 on my mtb right now. Testing the Rick 2.4s soon tho.
2 Likes