Forum home Mountain biking forum MTB buying advice

Intermediate tyres?

wadsywadsy Posts: 70
edited September 2009 in MTB buying advice
After much searching decided to post :wink:

I've got Conti SpeedKings for the 'summer' and Bonty Mud X for the winter, I'd like recomendations for in-between please!?

I'd like something light-ish (approx 500g possible?) and similar volume to the conti's (2.3) I believe they come up a bit small?

I was thinking Nobby Nics either 2.1 or 2.25 - which would be similar size-wise to the conti 2.3?

Thoughts and suggestions please

Thanks in advance


  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    2.3 and 500g are a rare combination - especially if they have any sort of tread.

    I use the speed kings, and I think they are a bit more than a summer dusty trail only tyre - they do come up small though.
  • .blitz.blitz Posts: 6,197
    Nics are great all-rounders and find traction in all but the worst mud. The 2.1s are very low volume tyres and only weigh 495g but are quite fragile. The sidewalls are paper-thin and they don't have the strength to tolerate any variations in pressure.

    The 2.25 weighs 570g and is easily as big as a 2.4 MK. It's a good all-rounder, just that bit burlier than the 2.1 at the expense of speed.

    The 2.4 Nic is not that much bigger than the 2.25 (only 4mm either side) but it is noticeably taller and weighs 675g (Snakeskin). It is much stronger than the 2.25 and takes a lot of abuse. It can be run at lower pressures without losing any stability.
  • wadsywadsy Posts: 70
    I think the Conti Speed King in 2.3 is about as big as my frame will take on the rear, which was why I was asking how big the Nics come up.

    I don't want something fragile though!

    I'll have to check the clearance as I don't want to buy a tyre and it not fit!

    Any experience of WTB Wierwolf race? the 2.1 is 545g apparently.

    Thanks for the replies

  • .blitz.blitz Posts: 6,197
    When I said the 2.25 Nic is as big as a 2.4 MK, I meant that a 2.4 MK is on the small side. MKs (esp the 2.2) are more of an XC tyre and are very fast rolling but don't have a lot of grip in sketchy conditions. Like a less grippy but faster alternative to a Nic.

    If clearance is limited, go for a 2.1 Nic on the back and a 2.25 up front.
  • WMB give the Weirwolf Race LT's 4 stars in the buying guide at the back of the mag. "Rolls fast and offers truly tenacious grip on everything from tree roots to granite slabs"

    The WTB site lists the 2.1 as being 700g for a 60 tpi Aramid bead and the 2.3 is 750g folding bead.
    Wow great ship man. Looks like a fish, flies like a fish, steers like a cow.

  • NorthwindNorthwind Posts: 14,675
    2.1 Nevegal? Bursts your weight limit, they're 610 grams if memory serves but they provide a stupid amount of grip for a 2.1 (I've got a set of 2.35s as well but I rarely feel the need) and they're effective mud shovellers without actually paying the price of being mud tyres- better IMO on loose surfaces and mud than Racing Ralphs, though slower on hard stuff. Decently big carcasses for comfort (Kenda own a ruler and know how to use it, most of their tyres actually size up as promised) Not exactly what you've specced to be honest but I think they fit the bill regardless.
    Uncompromising extremist
  • wadsywadsy Posts: 70
    I've measured the '2.3' Speed Kings and they are 2.09" (so, approx 2.1) or 53mm, they have enough clearance on the back, I could maybe add a mm or two!

    Anyone know the 'real' widths of a 2.25 Nobby or indeed any of the others mentioned above?

    I'd like to get a tyre the same size to make best use of available clearance!

    Thanks for replies

Sign In or Register to comment.