Ron & Nobby

ashleymp777

Despite sounding like footballers from the 1966 football world cup team, I'm seriously considering buying Schwalabe Nobby Nic and Rocket Ron's having only ever used Panaracer XC Pro's.

I ride XC only but need tyres that offer a good level of grip and that can take a reasonable battering. So what's the general opnion? Would these be able to cope?

njee20

The Ron is a much lighter carcass, thus a lighter tyre, I've not found them too durable, but they are very light (400g vs 580g for a 21" Fire XC).

The Nic is more of an all-conditions tyre, thicker carcass and longer life. A lot of people moan about sidewall strength, I've personally never had an issue, if you live somewhere very rocky I'd consider either the Snakeskin or Double Defence version.

RealMan

Yeah a rocket ron and nobby nic combo could suit your type of riding very well.

njee20

I'd go for either/or frankly, not both. If you want light weight over longevity get Rons, if you want a tougher tyre get Nics. Or consider Ralphs depending on when you're using them. Personally I use Mud X's all winter then switch straight to a Ralph, same side lugs as a Nic, but lighter and faster rolling.

RealMan

Yeah that's right, nobby nic on the front, racing ralph on the rear is meant to be great. Not sure about the rons.

njee20

Like I said, the Ron is a light weight all rounder, it's a knobblier version of the Furious Fred. More grip than a Ralph, less than a Nic, but mine are covered in cuts and rather worn after 6 months of not-solid use.

bike-a-swan

i changed from fires to nics last year. performance is probably a bit better all round, although the only things I've really noticed are that they're faster on tarmac (and presumably hardpack), clog a bit less and are lighter. They feel like they're made of paper next to the fires. I haven't had sidewall problems so far, although I suspect they wouldn't take a trailside bodge to get you home as well as the fires