How heavy are rocket rons
Anonymous
Posts: 79,667
Just received mine today
The Evo version 2.25
They weighed 0.23 kg = 230'grams
However the box says 445 grams a massive difference in weight there, have schalbe changed there materials ?
The Evo version 2.25
They weighed 0.23 kg = 230'grams
However the box says 445 grams a massive difference in weight there, have schalbe changed there materials ?
0
Comments
-
Your scales are wrong, or you have not put them on correctly. My supposed 445g versions weighed 518g.0
-
The scales are the hanging type ?
Tried various methods still same figures0 -
When inners arrive I will measure wheel + standard tube on Ralph's
Then weigh same again using new tubes and the rons0 -
Did you zero/tare the scales first?0
-
Sorted now weighed both combined 960 grams0
-
I'm thinking of getting a pair of these. Do they work in damp conditions ok? I want something fast but don't want to have to change tyres everytime we het a bit of rain.Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=130702350
-
RockmonkeySC wrote:I'm thinking of getting a pair of these. Do they work in damp conditions ok? I want something fast but don't want to have to change tyres everytime we het a bit of rain.
I use 2.25 NN on the front and a 2.1 racing ralph on the rear - its fine in mud and rain. I've never used Rocket Rons but was heavily advised against them as the sidewalls are very thin and in rocky areas they can be cut like paper.0 -
Side walls are paper fin on the performance tyre not the Evo type0
-
raceface gt wrote:Side walls are paper fin on the performance tyre not the Evo type
So which rocket ron is lighter - ORC (performance) or evo? I thought the evo compounds were generally lighter.0 -
Yes Evo are lighter and thinner.
Where did you find those out of interest? They're the older version, inflate better on the newer Stan's rims!
Edit: and they are pretty fragile, not my choice for rocky terrain fo sho. Pretty good in the mud, if it's wet mud, not sticky mud if you know what I mean!? No better/worse than a Nic.0 -
njee20 wrote:Yes Evo are lighter and thinner.
Thought so. So how can the sidewall be thicker on the evos and it still be lighter? Due to the compound I guess?
Just seems a bit weird for the ORC's to be like that compared to the evos.0 -
They're not, the sidewalls are thinner on the Evo than the Performance.0
-
So this is wrong:raceface gt wrote:Side walls are paper fin on the performance tyre not the Evo type0
-
-
You don't? I weigh the air before I put it in.
You've obviously missed the great aluminium rotor and stem bolt debate.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:You weigh your tyres when you buy them?
The claimed weights are usually wrong so its hard to know if you're actually getting a lighter tyre!
Well that and a certain element of sadness!0 -
-
Greer_ wrote:So this is wrong:raceface gt wrote:Side walls are paper fin on the performance tyre not the Evo type
I got it wrong buddy,
Thought the Evo compound were a lot thicker on the tyre wall0 -
njee20 wrote:Yes Evo are lighter and thinner.
Where did you find those out of interest? They're the older version, inflate better on the newer Stan's rims!
Edit: and they are pretty fragile, not my choice for rocky terrain fo sho. Pretty good in the mud, if it's wet mud, not sticky mud if you know what I mean!? No better/worse than a Nic.
Pm'd buddy0 -
Seriously, how hard is it to use the quote function. Just hit the sodding button.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Must be my setting never get the highlighted box0
-
Will look into the setting defo ain't playing0
-
Finally. Now we need to work on your OCD.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0
