Setup. Should more or less be drawing to a close... I'm getting a little bugged out these days going over infinite fine tuning, parts swap and followed by more micro-adjustments and more changes...

Now that the smaller EG is just about almost optimized in measurement settings like the bigger one-- I'm wondering if its time to get rid of one and really start looking at some the 'tweeners aka 27.5

A Tale of 2 EGs...

42 months on the med EG, I'm still left wondering if a small would be a better fit for my 5'10" height and 30.5" inseam...

Finally broke out the "spare" small-sized EG bought early last year and got it up and running.

Specification wise-- the only difference is a 1.5" in seat tube length and 0.75' effective top tube. Standover, headtube length and everything else is exactly the same-- or at least that's what it shows on paper...

All essential fitting measurements matched to the closest possible (+/0.25") has been achieved with the exception of bar height that is intentional due to the purpose of the second EG-- Optimize for climbs. Not that the older EG is lacking but at 37lb it's getting a bit heavy for weekly trail riding and pitting the XCers.

Choice of bar/ stem for new rig based on calculations from some previous configs on the older EG optimized for climbs. Basically longer stem and flat bar vs riser with a stubbie that is more for the descends and jumps.

Unexpected but in a nice way--  this "XC" setup on the smaller EG together with its tighter wheelbase and a couple of minor differences rail corners like a Moto GP.

Longer stem lower bar height bias for a more forward weight distribution apart from making the climbing better (as in less tiring over longer or more techie ascending sections) probably has a lot to do with the "did I just rail the last corner that frigging low" factor.

Same arm reach and saddle height and saddle to pedal length etc ... Height difference in top tube mostly due due camera angle

The key is always about compensating my few critical measurements when a different component is changed.
Good thing I've been keeping a a log of all the changes on my bikes to be able to build it mentally knowing exactly what to expect of the fitting and measurements...

To compensate for short stem/ long bar combo, the "default" for descending runs on a long travel bike, and still optimize for climbs usually is a matter of shortening up the arm reach and sit more upright.

Caught in between sizes, my older medium EG is getting everything shortened to the max. Running 750-760mm bars with a 35mm stubbie and saddle pushed forward, there really isnt much more to "make things any smaller"

While optimized in this manner presents no problem with climbing-- still the fact that leverage from a longer stem mated to flat bars being an advantage on the up is undeniable... On a long hard climb, I often wish for a longer stem but not if I have to shift forward so much on the saddle that it comes at the expense of losing rear wheel traction. That from all the years of riding also tells me Im overstretching.. the cramping calves and lower back pain is soon to follow.

On the small frame the reverse is not as difficult. Shortening the front but to keep arm reach similar-- its just a matter of sliding the seat rails back and or with a setback post. Optimal saddle height can probably take a small hike up as well...

Not that I will be going for a 3rd piece of the same frame but really the small would seem a better option if there is only 1 bike but having some components to swap it around for a "descending" oriented or "climbing" day...

As tested out on yesterday maiden offroad on EG2... despite being a granny handicapped 1x9, the overall lighter build and the climb setup easily took on the  "pedals down" traps-- loose over hardpack incline sections... The only thing about now not having a granny to bail out is to read the lines more carefully and further ahead than if the granny is there... well well all the old familiar xc feelings are coming back now..

[13 Oct] With a little bit more time this morning and a minor change to a 70mm stem, everything's narrowed down.

Frivolous dieting or performance enhancement?
A little bit of both I would say...

Less than stellar performance on the really loose all boils down to the mal-rebuild of the fork (too damped). A quick dirty fix on the trail by fully opening up the lo-comp helped much on the loose chunky climbs.

Was stoked with how the bike rails last week despite reservations with my old 2.4 Ardents that were transferred over to this build. Getting more comfy with the setup by now, I pushed the corners even harder... hmmm better side knob tires would definitely do even better! Thinking of the Schwalbe Hans Dampf Trailstar variant.... Can't really get my mind off those big squishy, and definitely grabby side knobs now..

The "one-with-the-bike" feel extends to all the more effort requiring moves being easier. Was popping off with lots of small but actual bunny-hop and pedal punches over the roots even in the tight twisty section. A lighter bike like now definitely helps too.

Geo and setup tweak done? Pretty much.


[22 Oct 12]
Not much to tinker except dropping sensible weight. I really hope the 34mm stanchions 160 forks will live up to it. The36 now clears everything but dropping another pound or so off the front would definitely increase the "surge" on a out-of-saddle-power sprint up....

[27 Nov 12]

A month plus now with all wet rides and an expensive mistake dropping weight further with what I thought might be good enough size but light tires later... 

 Ok it was fun getting back into that quick sprinting XC mode for awhile but nah... this is still the sh!tz I dig. Big fat tires and a jump friendly cockpit... Almost identical to the heavier EG but the weigght difference and quicker to adjust air boinks on both ends --it just makes that 2ft bunnyhop from flat almost a possibility....

Monarch RT3- IFP adjustability

Back to my forlorn forgotten blog now that the running event is finally over (at least for this year).

From the default RP23 to my first coil shock, an 08 DHX to the Diverse Dueler, plus a couple of loaners in between and now a Monarch RT3, I have learned a little more about suspension stuff. Those compressed neurons in the head thansks to the dense online reading is finally getting some rebound. I wonder if  a change in viscosity of brain fluid might also do wonders to my understanding as they can sometimes do with fork oil.

The problem with knowing more as we learn is to demand more out of the component or parts on the bike. Nothing is worse than suspensions with its myraid of parts. Any one of which could be a potential source of tweak to give that elusive "perfect" feel and function. As if that is not complicated enough, one will tend to DIY and tinker. Ok, maybe not for everyone but definitely applies in my case.

While it would be almost possible to pull apart most shocks on the market with the right tools, some are just not meant to be user-serviceable. On that count, Fox is notorious especially when it comes to things like their "inaccessible" IFP (Internal Floating Piston) and a lot of their special tools arent even available readily.

"Why bother?"
That's probably the question. The IFP if I describe it correctly is partly what resist the compression forces, loosely similar  to a negative spring in some of Rock Shox forks and hence affects small bump compliance characteristics.

To an extent the IFP relates to the bottoming out characteristics like how the tuning of shocks with a piggy resevoir would affect bottom out (Shocks with piggy resevoir also can have IFP, in fact most still do).

The problem with shocks like the RP23 is that there is no way to get to it until one gets into the inside most innards of the shock and expensive special tools are needed for the job. There are no guides provided on how to do it. In fact they don't recommend end users tinkering, everything is supposed to be done by a trained mech.

This is where the Monarch shines, with a little adapter that screws into a regular shock pump, now the IFP chamber can be fiddled to one's content... giving much more options when dialling in the shock. What's more there is even official video from SRAM/Rockshox that teaches how to  get to these parts online!

My RT3 is still pretty new and need a little more break-in time before fidgeting with the IFP (if its needed to). But first I really need to get back on the bike..

EG - A new setup

Dropped the idea of a full DH bike, just can't justify one with the lack of suitable riding terrain.

90% of the time a 6 x 6 setup is overkill for most of the riding around here. But an inch more upfront and a slightly slacker HA would definitely be good for the DH trips in Indonesia and Malaysia. Problem is the change to the bar height position might be too much after plugging a 180mm fork in. Chances are I'm unlikely to keep swapping forks back and forth too. So a compromise has to be made.

One change always lead to another. In a bid to minimize bar height changes with a longer fork and  better leverage with a longer flat bar, I got a 760mm Nukeproof flat bar. This together with the latest swap outs on the EG, a 165mm XT crank and a Blackspire Chain Guide for other reasons.

 Fixed up new crank, swapped back into 2 ring mode with old MRP bashguard

New chain guide in place.....

Time to set out with the bar....but first, just to make make sure differences in ride is not due to shorter cranks, new bar is not fixed on until a lap or two is done with the old barand stem.

Verifying old setup measurements at trailhead.
Bar height spot on with previous night measurement @ 41.25"

Have to admit its pretty weird the way I measure the reach on my bikes. For mtb I take it from a virtual point that is usually halfway at the stem which is dependent the sweep and rotation of the bar....something I term as "Effective Stem Length"... .

The reach is from this point to where it dissects the seat if another virtual line is extended upwards and parallel to the center of the seatpost.

Of course when sitting, it would be a bit further back but these points are easier to fix and measure.

Hence anytime I get a 24" +/- 0.25" for this reach measurement, its 99% sure I pretty much don't need to change a stem or adjust the saddle anymore.

With a flat bar, the initial bar height was a whooping 1.5" lower even with most of the steerer under stem stacked with spacers (~34mm).

Placed both bar/stem combo to compare the actual differences in height and length.

One last pic of old setup to benchmark against future changes

Changed up and tweaked, bar rotated up and outwards after 2 days of testing. Final bar height rests @ 40.75", still 0.75" lower than before and strikes a fine balance between climbing up and bombing down.

Pros and Cons of shorter crank arms
Broke my own rules of bike testing by having multiple component changes at once instead of one at a time. To eliminate shorter cranks from the cockpit changes, bike was ridden with  both new and old bar/stem combos. Basically the 165mm crank is a positive change after fearing for the worst.

With the kind of weight on the EG, it makes more sense to spin on the way up than than mashing on the pedals where a shorter crank would be an advantage. It also allows a wider range of gears in the rear to be used. As it spins faster on the down or straights it means having to change up to 1-2 heavier gear on the rear as compared with using the previous 175mm crank arms. Things might change if the other ongoing project for this bike--dieting of the EG gets underway.

Not enough airtime to tell if shorter cranks make for easier launching and better fine adjustments in mid air.

A key thing to the change was to see if it helps to eliminate pedal strikes. With the thin Point-One pedals, already strikes were very much reduced. With the 165mm I went over the usual spots where the pedal has a 50/50 chance of hitting. Seems to work as under full 160mm travel in front, out of ~15 test spots only once was the pedal clipped on the outer edge.

Front travel was then intentionally lowered to 130mm at some sections which reduces the bb height and the strikes on the pedals were also noticeably reduced compared with previous rides.

Downside of shorter cranks? Having to adjust to quicker shifting when coming out of a descend that rolls back into another steep climb. As mentioned it allows the use of harder gearing, this also means if the gearing ratio is not enough, there is a tendency to over spin and actually losing the initial momentum in a climb. Small adaptation that should be dialled in with another couple of rides.

Other related changes-- a slight raise in the seatpost. No issue as the full  5 adjustable inches is hardly ever needed

Comparison of bar/stem combos.
The swap to a flat bar was originally for accomodating a longer travel fork up front. However there was a positive secondary effect from testing out the change. Climbing.

This is attributed to a combination of both the lower bar height from the ground and the characteristics of a long flat bar.

Long flat bar is nothing new as my initial experience with them was when singlespeeding with a Nitto Torsion and Salsa Cromoto (666 and 685mm with 11-15 degree backsweep). Of course none of those are as ridiculously long as today's standard of 760 to Blackspire's latest offering of a whooping 800mm.

However I believe there is a relationship between bar length and travel. The longer length favored today has a lot to do with longer travels up front which raises the front height of a bike and needs a longer bar to keep it weighted down with less force, hence more agility to steer the front. From another point, whenever I tried to put a longer bar (say a 720mm) on a 100mm travel bike, it just doesn't seem right both in the handling and looks of it.

Back then I have already realized the ergonomic differences of relatively longer flat bar with more sweep but before these long flat bars made popular by the current trend in DH riding, there was just nothing out there to make a change to. So like most people I was stuck with the usual riser bars until now...

I have kept my ideal "reach" distance constant  in both setup at 24" +/- 0.25. However with the lower front and 4 cm additional in bar length, the front loading is noticeable. Things felt more "xc" with the accompanying numbness of xc riding in the saddle area and a tad uncomfortable when pressed against the nose. A slight tilt down of the saddle is needed. Slight departure from my usual saddle position.

But overall the change has helped made climbing much more positive. Nothing beats the 2  test section at Bukit Timah. First the oxymoron uphill rock garden. With the old riser bar+50mm stem, it was a 70/30 make-or-break at 160mm front travel. Wet and slippery days will usually fare worse when the rear starts to slip and the front hit the unavoidable foot high rock that is lodged smack in the middle of the line. Second is the usual short but steep 45 degrees concrete climb that gets everyone swearing under their breath.

On the new bar combo with the 65mm stem it was quicker to steer and the front felt lighter. Just a slight tad more twitchy but manageable. Unweighting the front to pull up over obstacles was easier despite the lower front end. Really strange as the opposite was expected with a flat bar at a lower height from the ground. Still can't really figure out where I got all the leverage from. The longer bar alone doesn't seem quite enough to explain it.

The overall climbing feel can be compared to a bike with lesser travel. While not as nimble as a 100mm XC bike but maybe more like a good geometry bike spotting 120-130mm front travel.

New Setup
760mm Nukeproof with 9 degree backsweep and Sunline 65mm AM stem

Old setup
720mm Funn Fatboy 9 x 5.5 degree back and upsweeps, 30mm rise with Titec El Norte 50mm stem















What usually works for the ups will work against the downs and vice versa. This is where (I think) the characteristics of flat bar with more sweep makes for a difference compared to traditional flat and riser bars.

Though the backsweep is 9 degrees but on a flat bar it somehow translates to more, putting the hands in a more neutral position than a 9 degree backsweep riser.


The rise in a bar has a psychological impact for me, giving more confidence when the bike is pointed down. Not sure why. With the flat bar, I have to fight this missing "factor". As the bar was a little lower than before and wider now, it could also have accounted for the fact that on the faster and rougher descents, it gave rise to a more heart dropping feel as the travel gets used towards the max.


Consequently it led to shifting the weight a little more rearward than usual. However once the adaptations were made, all the descents had a more fluid flow when turning. Together with the front being lighter to steer (despite a longer stem) flicking around the bends while descending was surprisingly easier. Before, I often had to use more lateral motions (body English) together with turning the front to swing the bike and get out of the tighter corners. Now the turns are approached with the outer leg pressed in to get a better grip earlier as there is no need to swing the body as much.

From pure numbers, I have gained a buffer of ~38mm to cater for an additional 20mm increase in front travel. Plenty enough in that aspect but need to watch for lever position hitting top tube as there is lesser clearance when the bar is turned.

Only thing to be wary of was the tight spots between trees while meandering with a longer bar.

However things will probably change again when a 180mm fork replaces the current 36 TALAS with a ~0.5 degree slackening in the HA. Guess more tweaks by then.

Tire Time 4

I really didn't want to start off this 4th writeup tire testing series with a limp and mauled up left wrist. Doesn't help that I'm a Southern Paw too. Ouch. So lets start with the verdict (and hear my bitching scream in caps)

NO MORE FARKING Rubber Queens for me (2.4).

2 Sundays, 2 washouts from the front. One at speed railing a berm in super dry condition. Makeup of the berm can only be described as hard-hard pack with some sandy runoff from usage. Today after the rain, it was an endo for no apparent reason after clearing a rocky double black down line with ass over rear tire . Pressure was a "relatively hard" 25psi (used to run it from 19 psi to the low 20s but been gradually upping the pressure as the tire tend to push rather than roll when at low pressure).

Though the fork has been softened by a couple of psi last night but it wasn't bottomed out at the moment of the endo.The reason could only be a front sliding washout on the slick plate-like rock at the bottom causing the bike to "t-bone" itself in a front pivoting move, catapulting the whole backend despite being weighted all the way rearwards. This is really a first for me, endo with weight back and not even feathering the brakes at all.

Had noted previously the side knobs on the RQ doesn't stick out anymore more than the sidewall. Plus I always had the nagging thoughts that the side knobs on the RQ aren't really up to the job with their relatively sparse alternating designs. Apart from having big volume making it suitable for low pressure riding, it was this reason as I wanted the tire to look for more conformity with the terrain on hard turning and banking.

Anyway at the end of the ride, was discussing with long time no see, Mr Wreck-It-All... conclusion of washing was due to the more prominent protruding sidewall which catches the terrain in a steep turn before the knobs does. He's having the same problem with the 2.4 Nobby Nic on the rear. Knob pattern aside, I realize that both the NN and RQ does indeed spot a very similar profile. High and protruding sidewall, slightly rounded instead of squarish. The side knobs in terms of size is anything but aggressive. Although having slanting knobs may give the impression that the knobs will catch more. However its too sparse...still can't quite figure out for now.

At the same time, I realized that he was using a 2.5 Prowler MX up front...verdict was that it gripped like a leech.
Something I attested to with a similar but smaller 2.3 Prowler XT for rear duty. Still maintain that at first look, this series of tires from WTB looks anything but grippy. Truth is that the secret lies with the staggered pair of transition and side knobs that will flare open when it catches onto something, effectively opening up the knobs surface area for more grip. My only rant then of the Prowler XT was that the actual size is smaller than a true 2.3. But here, the 2.5 MX sure looks good both volume and profile wise. Not heavy accounting that it is a wire bead rubber but just a tad heavy in terms of being on the bike, skewing off the weight distribution on my setup (stated weight of tire @ 952gm)..... Besides, if it lasts on Mr Wreck-It-all's bike, I reckon that's probably more than enough for me.

The other contender for a front would be the much ranted Maxxis DHF....I'm still trying to make sense of all the different models available. Got a feeling, I would still go with a WTB though.

Comparison

The rubber Queen 2.4. Side knobs with a look that I was never too comfortable with. Also notice that it is lacking any proper transition knobs. On hind sight, now even the spacing between the center knobs looks too wide, just like many of the Continental tires. A further look says the sets of 3 side knobs curving inwards makes for even more side wall exposure to the terrain--no good for traction.











The more squarish 2.4 Ardent on the rear.
Note the knob profiles on both. Carcass wise, the RQ is still marginally larger but the side knobs are definitely way over the side on the Ardent. See next two pics for comparison.



.





Both tires with pic taken from the side. Cam angle not really similar enough to make an effective comparison but still should suffice to see the difference (ie how much knobs are protruding vs the sidewall)

Used Prowler XT (unmounted in pic). Note the side pairing transition and side knobs.











Ok...done with tires.....let's digress

Another one of those Franken-DIY on Wreck-It_All's bike.
This time its a crapped out hydraulic Joplin that's been transformed into a "mechanical" version, similar to a Gravity Dropper!

Lever-- from old vee brake

Spring mechanism

Unbelievable! Seen loads of his problem-solver mods and now this.

My only comment will be to round out the edges on that wadever-u-call-it-spring-thingie.

Tire Time 2

Ok I'm just fickle, just when I kinda settled on my next combo of tires, things are looking to change again.

Needed some retail therapy last Friday and next thing I know, there's new rubber in the house, Ardent 2.4 (with EXO protection). Price wasn' too bad, easily one of the cheapest of these truly larger ones that can be bought locally.

Weight is impressive too (at least to me) for such a large tire (non UST version here). Claimed weight is 815gm on Maxxis site. Actual scale reading was ~810gm

Placed it side by side with a 2.35 high roller.... the overall width just blew me away. The extras on the sidewalls already told me how much more height it will be versus many tires of similar size on the market.

Usually front/ rear "dilemma" is pretty clear cut for me but with this the question of whether to mount it on the rear or swap out with the Rubber Queen 2.4 that's now in front was again seeding different ideas in my mind.

5 cups of nerve soothing green teas and probably twice as much nicotine fix later, decided that the RQ2.4 is too much of a bitch to yank off the rim. But at the back of my mind, I am still thinking that the ramp center knobs on the Ardent is probably going to do a much better job on the front hoop...

Putting the tire on was easy. Ran a 2.25 tubbie inside which seems ok for size (running too small inner tubes with big tires brings on its own set of problem). Good thing cos if u forgot the tire lever in the trail and have a flat...

Anyway this is how things look (for) now.

Gearing up for wet muddy and possible rain this morning, which it did, tire pressures were low. 17psi up front and 18 psi in the rear-duty Ardent for the day.

Cornering Traction

With that kind of pressure, commenting on the traction can be a little bias. Still, given the kind of wet condition, the tracking was awesome. But I did caught sight with a backward glance that the Ardent was actually deflecting way more than any tires I have used. Could be due to a combo of the pressure and the use of a less than ideal inner tube.

However nothing was unseated though. After a quick initial assessment while riding, I took a leap of faith in the next series of turn on a down. Leaning and going "brake-less" trusting the tires to take me through. The Ardent did not disappoint, the lower transition knobs didn't look impressive but did their jobs way better than expected, breaking nicely and letting the side knobs take over, which immediately hooks up to every bit of available terrain.

Having been on my old mangy Prowler, getting used to more and more slipping on wet climbs in the last 2 months, the Ardent hook up pretty well even in the wet by comparison. Over slick rock surfaces during climbs, it held much more than expected. More than once, when balance was just about to be lost with a lack of momentum, it was probably the side knobs that took over with effective grip, enabling me to quarter crank and force the next pedal stroke to get out of those situations. While the high rolling knobs isn't terribly efficient on rolling resistance, they probably are helping with more overall traction compared to other center-ramped tires.

Over rock gardens it did the job well too, maybe a bit too well despite the rain. On drier days, it would mean having to carry even more speed through. But then it may have something to do with the front....


Rubber Queen 2.4....continuing the assessment.
Going lower and lower pressure with bigger and bigger tires, I think, has reached a point where even if low pressure doesn't cause pinch flats as in my case but too little air is having negative effects in other way.

Though comfort level was high, the front RQ felt sluggish running around ~17 psi. Hitting down hard on it wasn't a concern. I was doing jumps and landing hard with my usual lack of finesse just yesterday with the same low pressure. Still it carried my weight well enough not to case the rim.

But on continuous twisting and turning in the trail today, the tire pushing dirt and mud much more than before. Even though the bike setup is decidedly rear weight bias, at the bottom of a few troughs, the whole bike bled too much speed as a result of the front pushing instead of rolling. Momentum was lost on the initial burst of the climb ahead.


Next test for the combo...
Putting pressure back up and see if everything still hooks up well for traction and improvement on rolling resistance.

Followed by a front rear swap.



Measurements of the 2 tires as it was run today (at higher pressure, they will probably measure a couple of mm wider and or higher). When measured at the widest point across knobs, both are 59mm on 30mm wide Subrosa rims

Given the RQ is slightly wider but the Ardent being a tad higher, volume wise, both are probably very close.

Tire	Rim+Tire Height carcass measurement, no knobs	Tire Height (inch) from rim				Tire Height (mm) from rim				Width (mm) side-side, no knobs				Width (inch)
Rubber Queen 2.4 with Rim	80.50	2.17				55.10				59				2.323
Maxxis Ardent 2.4	81.00	2.19				55.60				57				2.244

Tire Time

I hate changing tires. As far as possible, its an avoided chore though as anyone who rides with me knows that I religiously carry a pressure gauge and tune me rubbers according to trails and conditions.

I'm a firm believer that the first suspension in any bike is not in the fork or shock but the tires.
Therefore setting them up in sync with your suspension settings together with fluid flow in the limbs can only then complete the picture of total suspension. Traction is primary. Comfort is secondary but a side effect of being dialed in with all the "suspensions" of riding is usually one that will afford better comfort.


I've been chanting the mantra of bigger tires for awhile. IMO a good bigger tire outweighs the weight penalty. Still it would be silly to lug a 1.5 kg DH carcass on trail rides. It all boils down to what your ride, bike type and yes, in part bodily strength if u aren't simply keeping both wheels to the ground. Rocking a bike or airing can be physically demanding and excess weight especially up in the front wheel just makes for a few more sloppy moves when tired.

Price is always a factor and not all expensive tires are good. On the main 6x6 rig, I have more or less come to a conclusion on the tire types it needs for my kind of riding around here; lots of hardpack and square edges during short steep climbs. The downs are nothing to talk about in our local trails, most bigger tire will give the extra confidence and aggressiveness to chomp down most stuff that can be found. Big aggressive squarish profile in front tends to push dirt rather than roll over it in general. But a rounded profile at the back is too skittish. rear works best for me with a squarish tire but low center rolling knobs.

Having steadfastly hugged 2.35 Fat Albert up front, I wasn't too keen to change to other tires. The notable exception was the love-hate affair with a Rubber Queen 2.4 once..........until now. With only 1 more new spare Albert in the storeroom, this cheapo non folding model I have been using is discontinued with the launch of the new Albert range. No doubt lots of marketing bullshit for more expensive tires to suck the consumers' dollar. Not too convinced from all the reviews available on the new Alberts, so it was time to rethink what could hopefully be the next new tire for the few years to come.

Firstly a little review... 2.35 Fat Albert (touring, non foldable) model has been up front since the Motolite to the present El Guapo. Grips just about anything despite the sparse looking knobs. Initially I had to overcome the feel of the rolling resistance as the last few tires had ramped center knobs like Nevegals and Panaracer Rampage 2.35 which made for much faster rolling. However after a few rides and getting a hang of things, the Albert performed much more predictably, notably from its huge carcass amd was rather confidence inspiring. Weight, is pretty light for a non-folding. Never really weighed but compared to other claimed 750gm tires, it probably felt like 680ish gm.

Molded over 30mm Spank Subrosa, they are pretty wide upfront. Rocking over 2 foot wide dips between roots is not a problem. Can't say the same for most skinnier tires.

As a non believer of UST tires, naturally pinch flatting was a concern. Till date after 3 Fat Alberts in as many years, I had believe it or not, only just as many pinch flats. 2 of them from landing stupidly off-cambered in jumps at low pressure.... and one from hitting a sharp rock seriously hard on a down.

Tire pressure. Every piece of rubber has more or less their own sweet spot. And it is pretty oxymoron to talk about tire pressure without taking into account rider's weight when trying to find the lowest that still runs best without too much flatting.

For me, its 19-21 psi at a geared weight of 75kg.
~21 psi when on the Motolite with a 140mm fork with a bike geometry that has considerably more weight pressed down in front.
~19 psi now on the El Guapo with a more laid back posture, due both to the bike geometry and the way its set up.

How low is too low? A few factors to consider, but my easy way out on days when I am feeling less profound is to size it up with my eye-ball-o-meter. When seated, if the rubber's height deflection is not significant and riding over a consecutive rough patch doesn't bounce like a ball, that's good enuf for me.

Have tried tons of pressure setting and the above always work out. On super wet pouring days where every millimeter of traction counts where I know I won't be taking a jump anyway, the pressure has gone as low as 13-16 psi without ill effect.

High side? Anything above 24-25 psi for me is only good for 1 thing. Riding Tarmac to get home quick after a day in the trails. Once pumped up high, the tire loses its good handling characteristics. On few occasions where trail condition was nice and dry higher pressure certainly made things feel a lot faster on the hardpack but the moment it came to getting controls at the bends over roots and rocks, I wished it would just deflate back to a hair under 20 psi.

On the height profile, it raises ~0.6 cm over the 2.35 Rampage (hence it is overall 1.2 cm bigger in diameter).
Without considering the extra girth, the height alone translates to a huge jump in air volume.


Durability? Sure as hell lasted for long time. Though 3 were changed in 3 years, the last one is still in use on another bike. The earliest was de-commisioned due to rubber hardening over time and not because knobs were too worn down to be thrown away.

Weight of non folding is usually the bane and that actually is where the cheapo Albert shines. You know they always say, "Light, Strong and Cheap, choose 2"-- this one u can have all three and eat it too.
But all good things comes to an end....so today I threw the 2.4 Rubber Queen back on that were used for a couple of months last year. Its bigger than the Albert and the height is a good ~1 cm higher and wider too.
My rant with it is the relatively weaker sidewall that tends to fold at lower pressure. Sure, all the marketing hype about Snakeskin and whatever compounds is stronger .....bottom line,  a folding tire is usually weaker when it comes to the tire buckling  in a corner compared to non-folding tires.

The last time I ran it, pressure was at ~25 psi, anything lower I would be looking at the wheel more than I like during a run. Yesterday I decided to go with ~21 psi and just not look at it but concentrate on the trail ahead. trail was dry, traction was good. Hit a couple of flights of stairs in between going both down and riding up, no unexpected bounce off.

Putting on the Rubber Queen took a little bit of bitch-yanking technique. Still I managed to do it without the aid of a tire lever. Which is a good thing cos u know sometimes on the trail when u need those little helpers, they somehow go mysteriously missing in your hydro bag.

Overall its 2 cm larger in diameter than when compared to the Rampage from before and almost 1cm higher than the Fat Albert (Carcass measurements, not including knobs).

With a road bike front wheel put side by side, an inflated 2.4 Rubber Queen is almost as large as a 700c wheel.
Maybe not a 29er yet, but sure is close to being like some of those 650 mountain hoops

More trail testing needed but the same feeling of added confidence came back like the first time I had used it. The slight rise up front due to the rubber height was noticeable but not in a negative way. I begin to compress my front and dunk harder on the trail, pumping the bike became easier and less scary. Compensating for a higher front, just have to un-weight a split second earlier into climbing position when going up steep rutted climbs interspersed with rocky square edges.


The back was still somehow mated to my trusty WTB Prowler XT Comp 2.3. Again another tire of choice that has stayed since discovering it 2.5 years ago. Not the widest or most voluminous that my stays could accommodate but the best performing piece for me.

I was changing the rear too after the front but somehow after putting on the WTB 2.55 LT Weirwolf Race, I simply can't fathom how I am gonna ride that piece. Took a look at a 2.35 High Roller, realized that I was sent the wrong model--it was the DH super heavy 2 ply model in my hand. Should have checked the package when it arrived two months ago.  Arrghhhhhhh....so I suck thumb and stuck the 1/2 worn down Prowler back on.

Tire Pressure. Initially the tire didnt look like it will grip but after all these while I got the sweet spot at ~21 to 22 psi and it grip like a leech. So if u are the type that likes a little more drifting, then this may not be such a good tire for you. Beyond 25 psi, the noticeable kick from going thru bigger roots is something that my butt can give you a good review on. I attribute part of the grippiness to the roughened surface i between the knobs and the split knobs themselves. When the tire breaks, it will quickly find grip again noticeably starting from the inner row of side knobs. Rolling resistance is something I wouldnt rate as being too low but not silly high and makes u feel sucked down either.

On a side note, the new Prowler SS Race 2.3 with the additional center row of knobs seems to be WTB's answer to something faster rolling but retaining all the other traits of this tire. But how does the extra knob affect centerline traction now that the space in between knobs is filled up as compared to the XT?

All in, from magazine reviews to those of rider Joes, what's described has been similar to my own experience with the WTB Prowler XT, so next purchase? Yah, I'll probably end up with both the XT and the more expensive SS too...

At ~850gm its not light (as heavy as the non UST 2.4 Rubber Queen). For the performance, I wouldn't trade it for anything else now. Oh yes, it is a folding tire but with considerably thick sidewall, which probably explains the weight and also why it would fold in easily during hard cornering.

Durability. Center threads will start to wear a bit thin after a couple of hundred km. But tire will continue to hold.
My early concerns then was the bits of rubber found inside the rims as the side gets sheared off. But each time till I retired the XTs, none had their sidewall rubbed off enough to render them unsafe. The nylon threading on the sides will start coming off making the tire look all mangy but again its only superficial.

Flatting, yes when I start to go silly low on some days like 12-15 psi and insist on ripping thru every piece of tire devouring rock out to catch stupid bikers. Otherwise, again it is a relatively flat-proof tire.

Figured that once the useful life as a hardcore tire is over, could always find it a second life as "semi slicks" on my other bikes that see more gentle riding. No point throwing away perfectly good things. Do your part, save some rubbers.


So for now, my next stable combo looks set to be 2.4 RQ front and 2.3 Prowler XT Comp/ 2.3 SS Race in the rear



Time to sell off all other once tried but otherwise still new tires....


Measurement & Comparison of  tires from above
Height measurement is taken at highest flat point of carcass (without knobs)
Width measurement is taken at widest point which could be either at the knobs or carcass.
 

Tire	Rim+Tire Height	Tire Height (inch)			Tire Height (mm)				Width (mm)				Width (inch)						Tire Height (mm)	15% deflection inclusive of rim height		15% deflection rule not inclusive  of rim height
Tire Dimensions Relationship
Rubber Queen 2.4 with Rim	82.00	2.23			56.60				61				2.402						56.60	69.70		48.11
Fat Albert 2.35 + Rim	78.30	2.08			52.90				57				2.244						52.90	66.56		44.97
Rampage 2.35 + Rim	72.00	1.83			46.60				54				2.126						46.60	61.20		39.61
WTB Prowler XT 2.3+ Rim	75.30	1.96			49.90				53.3				2.098						49.90	64.01		42.42
Ardent 2.4 with Rim	81.00	2.19			55.60				58				2.283						55.60	68.85		47.26
Rim height used for all @	25.40