Bontrager has had such consistently bad tires for years that I am going to be real skeptical on these until they get properly tested and also get some real world reports from others like those on this thread.
2 Likes
It sounds like they may be worth another look as a pretty viable option. I seem to remember near launch that some of the pros using them in World Cups were getting a lot of flats, but maybe those issues got worked out.
What did you appreciate at Aspens and what were the drawbacks?
The Aspen tires excel in cornering and speed but fall short in braking performance. However, the introduction of the MaxxSpeed compound was the main reason I decided to move away from them. In my experience, MaxxSpeed performs worse than the 3C compound in many aspects (weight, speed, traction…). The only advantage seems to be for Maxxis, as it’s easier and cheaper to manufacture a tire with a single compound.
1 Like
The Aspens also clear mud and soil in general extremely well. The huge volume also provides this magic carpet ride I can’t find elsewhere. In proper deep mud they perform no worse than Racing Ray/Ralph and self clean better. Only reason I don’t use them now is because I find them absolutely deadly on slimy over hard ground. Unfortunately that happens to be 90% of trails from October to May here in the Swiss plateau
4 Likes
BRR results are up for the Rick XC… They lived up to the hype/expectations, in testing nearly inline with the Race King for rolling resistance, while lacking just a bit in puncture protection, but still totally acceptable. They also measured up in spec with their width, and wider than most at 59m/2.3" when they mounted them up to a 17mm internal. This matches my experience, as mine are sitting at 2.52" on my 32mm internal.
4 Likes
I’m still boggled by the 17mm internal rim.
I’m running winter wheels with DTSwiss 30mm iw alloy rims (they are heavy for sure) and Gravel King SK 2.1 (52-622) that measure out at 57.5 mm. I only bring them up because they’re similar to Rick on the center, but lacking in that they don’t really have side lug, but they are gravel tires, not MTB.
2 Likes
Caution. What you see in the default comparison graphic is the newer, sadly worse Race King ProTection E-25.
Only when you switch the graphic comparison list to the 5 best rolling resistance you see the “real” good Race King - which is pretty much in line with the Thunder Burt. Of course no news.
Not to say the Rick XC tests bad. Quite the opposite. But it’s a good deal apart from the real fast guys.
Good catch. It does give up 2 or 3 watts to the fastest Race King compound/version, but still lands up there just behind Schwalbe’s less knobby offering of the recent Thunder Burts.
The “fastest” Race King’s results are a 2020 test which was using innertubes and then later calculated/converted to “sealant results”. I know they tested extensively to determine their conversion, but it would be interesting to see how those tires actually test in that configuration - it seems possible that their conversion model overestimates the savings when switching tubed>tubeless. Evidenced by the fact that not a single tire tested in the tubeless protocol (including numerous updates to the “best”) have tested anywhere close to the <16w that everyone is holding as the gold standard.
6 Likes
Even if the convertion tubeless was accurate, the relevant benchmark for tire selection should be the currently available model, ie the E25. My expectation is that the Rick’s considerably bigger volume more than makes up for the small delta in RR
8 Likes
For sure! I’d choose Rick over the Race King because the extra volume would be welcomed on my hardtail.
2 Likes
I think the practical consideration for which Race King to consider against is that I don’t think you can purchase the non-E25 version anywhere anymore. If the point in comparing tires on BRR is to determine which one to buy, then comparing against the old Race King is an exercise in futility.
4 Likes
Completely agree with this. In this lens the Rick is within 2% of the fastest drum tested MTB tires with considerably more volume - seems like a winner to me.
5 Likes
I just had my second race on the Ricks and they worked flawlessly on a faster flowing course. The ultimate test will be the race at my home trails in two weeks (assuming another hurricane doesn’t come lol).
9 Likes
When Conti finally launches their larger volume XC tire in 2025, it seems the Rick will be the benchmark to compare to.
3 Likes
Mezcal XC Race 2.4 is up at BRR
2 Likes
Looks like the Mezcal XC tested pretty well, but a little bit slower than some of the fastest tires (Race King, Rick).
I used it for a few rides this past summer on the front. I think my comments are somewhere in this thread but my impression was that it felt a bit draggy on gravel and pavement, but fine on the trail., so perhaps reflective of the test results.
I don’t know how well the BRR puncture testing translates into real world puncture resistance, but if the Mezcal XC can hold up well on the trail, it might turn out to be a good option for events where a little extra flat protection is need. Thinking something like Little Sugar.
For me the Mezcal XC 2.1 “feels” slower on pavement than the WTB Nano 2.1, but has much better grip in the dirt & gravel.
I’ve been in this thread for a while, and I always asked myself the question….”Do any of you buy a tire based off grip?”
Everyone talks about rolling resistance, but if you cant take a corner fast, how much are you actually making up?
I know we all ride different areas, so this may not apply to everyone.