Glad I was remembering it mostly correctly. I think you have me interested in doing some similar testing as I have some mild gravel like this of differing speeds right close to the house.
I’m still personally a fan of the race king, but that’s because it reliably tests fast, and it’s lightweight, and it tests better on puncture protection, even if they can be a pain in the a** when it comes to developing wobble. Traction and cornering isn’t a real issue for me in the events I have lined up though, and I like the Wolfpack Speed 2.4" so far for my “Every day” wheelset but am considering something like the Aspen or Rush when I swap those out.
Thanks for all the info and input you’ve shared in this thread.
So, for me, and for my trails, the Aspen ST are the Goldilocks tyres from now on.
You’ve likely mentioned this already, but I wasn’t able to find it in a search, but what kind of trails are you riding on? How have the ST’s faired in terms of flat-protection? I’m also curious about longer-term durability, but it’s likely too early to judge on that.
For mountain biking, especially in cross-country (XC) disciplines, balancing grip and rolling resistance is crucial for performance. Schwalbe offers several tire combinations that excel in these areas. Here are some of the best combos from Schwalbe for XC riding:
Schwalbe Racing Ray (Front) and Racing Ralph (Rear):
Racing Ray: This tire is designed for the front wheel, providing excellent grip with its aggressive tread pattern that handles well in corners and technical conditions.
Racing Ralph: Paired with the Racing Ray on the rear, the Racing Ralph offers a faster rolling tread pattern that still provides good traction and is efficient on a wide range of surfaces.
Schwalbe Rocket Ron (Front and Rear):
Rocket Ron: This is a versatile option that balances low rolling resistance with good grip. It’s lightweight and has an open tread design that performs well in both dry and moderately wet conditions. Using Rocket Ron on both wheels can provide a uniform feel and performance.
Schwalbe Thunder Burt (Rear) with Racing Ray (Front):
Thunder Burt: Ideal for the rear when you’re looking to maximize rolling efficiency without severely compromising on traction. It’s best suited for dry, hardpack conditions.
Racing Ray: As before, using this on the front ensures good control and grip, complementing the faster-rolling Thunder Burt on the rear.
When choosing your tire combo, consider the typical conditions you ride in and what characteristics are most important for your style of riding. The mentioned combinations offer a good start, balancing grip for technical maneuvers and low rolling resistance for efficient speed.
I asked ChatGPT the following: what is the best schwalbe MTB XC tyre combo for best grip and rolling resistance
There is a lot of personal preference to tire choice.
I dislike R Ray tires. Their grip is not confidence inspiring and they give-up pretty quickly. Also I don’t like that the side knobs extend quite a bit beyond the carcas. At first I thought that would be a plus but in tight places it tends to grab unpredictably from anything on the sides, so anything deep mud/tight/skinny is a “we’ll see how it goes” instead of “hell yeah, I can nail that”. I would put a Rocket Ron or a R Ralph in front, if you want to stick with one brand, but I would consider a Pirelli Scorpion (XC M, or XC RC) for the front.
In fact, I’ll be riding a Ralph (r) and Pirelli (F) front as soon as I finish the Aspen I am running on the rear. Any time this month.
This really just seems like regurgitated marketing text. I would put absolutely zero confidence into asking chatgpt about tires, let alone what the “best combo” is. It doesn’t have any secret data that isn’t publicly available, it just reads what is out there on the internet already and rehashes that back to you.
Yup. I know people love them but I HATE the Aspen for the trails I ride (sandy, loose over hard). I know it rolls well but the lost grip and sliding just gives no confidence.
Great example. I still have the fast traks that came with my bike. Nice grip, nice rolling feeling, good comfort, but not enough support for my liking and poor handling on chuncky stuff. Two opportunities resulting in two rim strikes … aaaand out.
The Aspen was out of curiosity, influenced a couple of (very fast) friends that run Aspens exclusively on their rear wheels. I gotta say I am impressed, but yeah, they don’t work well for anything very - steep, -loose, -greasy … not even -fast as it offers little control when going fast and something unexpected comes out like a turn, a big rock, etc.
Looking fwd to trying the R Ralph, but I want to squeeze a few more miles out the aspen.
Thanks @JoeK1ng for your explanation and the other details in your other replies. I’ll have a closer look at all your MTBR posts. Thanks for sharing your results, I forget to say.
You said it wasn’t scientific, but that’s fine. No test is perfect, including my own tests, and even proper scientific trials are never perfect. It’s always a compromise of test quality versus time & cost (and for us amateur testers, motivation and hassle!). Whether it’s scientific trials or our own bike testing, all results should be taken with a pinch of salt, and the design of the test determines if it has to be a big or a small pinch of salt. Hence, in science, meta-analyses are often done to collect results from multiple researchers, and whenever a big discovery is made, other researchers rush to see if they can reproduce the results (e.g. cold fusion). That spectrum of uncertainty is a fact of life.
Please don’t take any questions as criticism. It’s a bit of the above, trying to understand the test method and any weaknesses but also because, for a while now, I’ve wanted to try doing some rolldown tests myself and I’m interested to see how other people do it. From a few internet searches I’ve seen a mixed messages from various knowledgeable people about the reliability of rolldown methods, with a few do’s and don’t’s, but no clear best practice. Or at least I haven’t yet found any guidance similar to what you find for Chung (virtual elevation) testing.
I see that you’ve already taken some measures to remove potential biases, like testing the tyres on the same day, which is good. I’m sure there are some other improvements you could make, some might be easy and others would likely be too difficult/expensive.
You mentioned about lower pressures too, and I found exactly the same when I did my own testing (here), that lower pressures are better. I have a theory about that. I think everybody already realises, hopefully, that the pressure trends in BRR aren’t applicable to off-road riding, and we can (at best) only use BRR for ranking one tyre against another one, and probably also only if they have similar widths.
Looking to move over to Racing Ray / Racing Ralph 2.25 as I’m building up a gravel / marathon XC bike. I hear a lot of good news about this combo but as many people say tyres are a personal preference. After some googling (not chatgpt ) these seem to be the best / lightest combo that have the best rolling resistance.
Any other options out there (has to have tanned walled)
I typically run “the racing brothers”, but also Barzo/Mezcal combo. I’m more confident in the Bazro front, partially because it’s a 2.35 and the first set of R/R I had were 2.25. That said… I ran R/R in a 2.35 at Sea Otter in the XL this year and didn’t have any grip issues on either end.
I also tried a Ray F in a 2.35 and Thunder Burt R 2.1 on my HT out on the Sea Otter course and hit grip issues with Burt. Burt and sheer frequency of deep sand weren’t getting along very well. If it were only a spot or two I might have been able to deal with it.
I’ve also been known to throw on a set of 50mm Maxxis Ramblers on and just run skinny (that converts to about a 1.95) which is actually pretty good so long as there aren’t any chonky descents.
I used to believe, until recently, that BRR results were more or less synonymous with real trail rolling resistance results, because compound is most important.
That is, until I tested the Rush against the RaceKings. One or two weeks ago BRR published their test of the Rush SCT 2.4, and in their drum/high tyre pressure) test it was ‘a lot’ slower than the RaceKing Black Chili Protection 2.2.
My findings in real terrain at realistically low pressures said the opposite.
Then I gave the Aspen ST a try and they are much faster than both the Rush and the RaceKing.
In other words, BRR is nice and all, but my opinion has changed after my own real world test results proved to me personally that there is more than meets the eye.
Tyre compound, trail type, tyre pressure, tyre width, etc. all have an influence on actual real world speed.
I’ve ran Mezcal/Mezcal 2.35 for the previous 3 years. No real complaints, but did tend to lose the front more often than I prefer. For 2024 I wanted to try something new, so I’m on Ray/Ralph 2.35.
So far I’m a fan and prefer over Mezcals. I’ve ridden in the dry and just yesterday 4.5 hours of rooty, damp with slick spots conditions.
I’ll be using these primarily for my MTB 100 mile race and also a few XC races.
Here’s an example of some runs in December and it’s typical of my results. I think the biggest problem with my protocol is that it takes so long to do a bunch of laps that the lap speed actually changes…maybe due to changes in the surface or air pressure or I don’t know what…but this was swapping out only the front tire so you can double the time savings. The track is twisty single track with roots, flat/no climbing, one requires touching the brakes once (or maybe twice) per lap. I have over 150 laps on this so I’m getting pretty consistent.
I don’t think it’s considered a XC tire, but the Wicked Wills front and back have been a great combo for me.
Better feel to me than the Ray/Ralph combo.
Opening disclaimer - not a scientific test, just anecdotal opinion.
I rode a race this past weekend in Grand Junction, CO, on 2.6” Bontrager XR4s. The course is usual desert - a lot of chunky rock and sand.
The 2.6s were very confidence-inspiring on fast technical descents. They were grippy, and smoothed out some of the usual trail chatter on trails like these. I set a bunch of PRs on various descent segments (screenshot below with some examples).
There was a long 35 min climb in the middle where I was pushing hard - so comparable in level of effort to past races on this course. I was 45 seconds slower vs last year (when I was on Schwalbe Wicked Will and Nobby Nic). Hard to know how much of that to attribute to tires, given other variables like fitness, wind, etc. - but given Bontrager/Trek isn’t exactly known for their tires, it wouldn’t surprise me if they are slower than the Schwalbes.
All-in, my time for the course was the same as last year at 3:26 both years. This year, I was slower on the climbs, and faster on the descents vs last year.
I tend to ride reasonably frequently on chunky terrain like this, so I wish there were more options in 2.6” tire sizes. It would be great to get all the descending benefits of wider tires with something that could also be fast rolling. I’m going to Moab in a few weeks, and will leave the 2.6s on. Most of my local trails aren’t as chunky as Grand Junction/Moab, so will switch back to 2.35/2.4s for my summer riding/races.
A bunch of PRs on the downhill section starting at mile 20.
) these seem to be the best / lightest combo that have the best rolling resistance.
