Hell, about to order Hi-rollers, then more opinions!

pilsburypie
Posts: 891
What do they say, opinions are like a55holes.....everyone's got one!
Want tubeless tyres for my X-treme cross country, bit of free ride, trail centres....
Was gonna go for High Rollers 2.35 super tacky front and back (UST only come in 2.35 super tacky). Just read a post that they are crap on the back...... What is a better rear tyre to pair with the front 2.35 High Roller?
Want to order and replace my mud-x as mud is going round here 8)
Want tubeless tyres for my X-treme cross country, bit of free ride, trail centres....
Was gonna go for High Rollers 2.35 super tacky front and back (UST only come in 2.35 super tacky). Just read a post that they are crap on the back...... What is a better rear tyre to pair with the front 2.35 High Roller?
Want to order and replace my mud-x as mud is going round here 8)
0
Comments
-
Just looked as well 935g per tyre - that's a pretty heavy tyre....0
-
How about trying an Ignitor on the rear... a lot of people like the combo of that and a high-roller... ?0
-
Was thinking of an ignitor for a rear tyre. Some findings so far for my UST options:
High Roller UST 2.35 42a 740g
Ignitor UST 2.1 70a 655g
Ignitor UST 2.35 60a 805g
Would have to drop to a 2.1 on the rear to make it worth running cos of weight.... not too much of a problem....
I'm becoming a bit of a weight weenie! We spend so much on a decent light bike, why crap it up on poor tyre choice!!
Never knew they were directional..... may run the rear backwards if I decide to go that way.0 -
-
papasmurf. wrote:super tacky is well slow to pedal, I'd save it for uplift days.0
-
ratty2k wrote:I've run High Rollers front and back with no issues- run the rear one backwards for improved climbing traction. Other than that great tyres.
Doesn't that defeat the object of having ramped tyres, not to mention give them a lot less grip when braking?
In response to the orignal question,
I run them front and rear, but will be chaging the rear for somthing else soon. They're a bit of a nightmare climbing loose stuff or roots as they spin up easily. Awesome on anything pointing downhill though! They're downhill tyres, they just get used for XC a lot.0 -
-
papasmurf. wrote:I know the 2.5 USTs come in the other harder compunds...so must be versions of the 2.35 in others as well.0
-
P-Jay wrote:ratty2k wrote:I've run High Rollers front and back with no issues- run the rear one backwards for improved climbing traction. Other than that great tyres.
Doesn't that defeat the object of having ramped tyres, not to mention give them a lot less grip when braking?
In response to the orignal question,
I run them front and rear, but will be chaging the rear for somthing else soon. They're a bit of a nightmare climbing loose stuff or roots as they spin up easily. Awesome on anything pointing downhill though! They're downhill tyres, they just get used for XC a lot.
It does lose a little braking grip yes- but most is done through the front anyway so its not that big an issue. The other alternative I use is a Minion rear on the back- got lugs more suited to putting power down. I run a 42A Supertacky front and a 60A Maxxpro rear- dont find it too draggy- but I anit skinny or fast uphill anyway, so not too worried- I'd rather have the grip.0 -
What about sticking with Bonty? - i've stuck some Jones XR on the back and ACX on the front of my Hardtail and coverted to tubeless [got some 2nd hand Rhythm wheels, same as the Trek.]
Not had much of a chance to test them as still muddy round here, but seem ok weight wise and good value.0 -
Aren't the Jones XR what the Trek came with? - didn't rate them too much.....0
-
Asked to have mine come with Mud x's to get me through winter. Think the Jones look ok for summer, back only though - hence why i've gone for the slightly more ramped acx on the front.
Is an option, and 1 i'm guessing not many people use! - think the Mud x's are awesome though, so reckon Bonty know what they are doing rubber wise.
What about Specialized 2 bliss versions?0 -