In our tire comparison test, we didn’t just push countless models to their limits on the trails, but also tested inSchwalbe’s lab until they gave out. The result: a huge pile of dead rubber and an even bigger pile of raw data – far more than we could fit into our in-depth review. Instead of shelving the data after the test, we dug deeper. Behind those rigid numbers we found striking patterns, clear correlations, and plenty of technical “aha” moments.patterns, strong correlations, and plenty of technical “aha” moments.
Statistical correlations in our big tire comparison test
How do weight and puncture protection tie together? What impact does weight have on rolling resistance? And which factors don’t connect at all? The lab data practically begged us to dig for correlations.
To assess how strongly two sets of measurements are related, we use the Pearson correlation coefficient, which always falls within a range of -1 to +1: a result of +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation, while -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation. A coefficient of 0 means there’s no correlation between the two sets of data. The closer the value is to ±1, the stronger the relationship. Here’s an example: if heavier tires almost always offer more puncture protection, the value will be close to +1. If heavier tires consistently had less puncture protection, the value would be near -1. If tire weight has no effect on puncture protection, the coefficient will be close to 0. Thanks to our big sample size of 64 tires, we’re able to obtain statistically significant – and in some cases highly significant – results, meaning it’s highly unlikely that the correlations we found occurred by chance.
Weight and pinch-flat protection
There’s a strong positive correlation between weight and pinch-flat protection: the Pearson correlation coefficient “r” of 0.80 clearly indicates a connection between a tire’s weight and its pinch-flat resistance. The correlation is statistically highly significant, too. So, don’t expect to find a super lightweight tire with excellent pinch-flat protection. When it comes to impact resistance, more always mean more.
Heavier tires in the test show significantly better pinch-flat resistance.
It’s a different story when it comes to the correlation between weight and puncture resistance. Here, the Pearson correlation coefficient is only 0.27, indicating a weak positive correlation. This shows there’s only a weak link between a tire’s weight and its resistance to punctures from sharp objects. Heavier tires tend to offer slightly better puncture protection, but the effect is far less pronounced than with pinch-flat resistance. There are also outliers – lighter tires can still offer good puncture protection. The Specialized tires with the Grid Trail casing are a great example of this. Conclusion: Weight alone only has a limited impact on a tire’s puncture resistance. Factors like casing density and rubber compound likely play a much bigger role.
Lightweight tires can also be resistant to punctures.
So, are high impact resistance and high puncture resistance not connected at all? Statistically speaking, there’s a clear correlation between these two factors. Tires that withstand a greater drop height during the impact test generally also show above-average puncture resistance – the correlation is noticeable, but not particularly strong (r = 0.56).
Tread puncture vs. sidewall puncture
Unsurprisingly, a potential correlation can also be observed between puncture resistance on the tread and on the sidewall. With a correlation coefficient of r = 0.55, it’s fair to assume that tires generally offer comprehensive puncture protection. If a tire provides more protection on the tread, this usually applies to the sidewall as well.
Rolling resistance and weight
Across the entire test field, there is a moderate correlation between weight and rolling resistance (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.39). The data suggests a relationship between weight and rolling resistance, though not a determining one – other factors, especially the rubber compound, have a greater influence on rolling resistance than weight does.
Rolling resistance and puncture protection
There’s little correlation between rolling resistance and puncture protection. In the case of puncture resistance (against sharp objects), there’s even a very slight negative correlation. In other words: higher puncture resistance can occasionally go hand in hand with lower rolling resistance. For pinch-flat protection, there’s a weak positive correlation with rolling resistance. Overall, though, the two factors remain largely independent of each other. That’s good news: you don’t necessarily have to choose between low rolling resistance and high puncture protection!
The standout findings in our tire comparison test
The tests at Schwalbe’s labs begin on the rolling resistance test bench. Rolling resistance is measured on a smooth steel drum – which, of course, doesn’t replicate real-world trail conditions. After all, hardly anyone rides on metal surfaces, let alone one that’s slightly curved. That said, the latter deviation can be minimized by using a larger drum diameter: A bigger drum comes closer to the feel of an actual bike wheel rolling on flat ground. With less awkward casing deformation, the results line up much closer to real-world rolling resistance.Of course, Schwalbe know this, which is why their tire test rig uses a large-diameter drum. Despite its limitations, the rolling resistance test bench is still an indispensable tool. It measures rolling resistance in a reproducible way, isolated from other forms of riding resistance. This ensures fair comparisons: every tire undergoes the same procedure under identical conditions — 50 kg wheel load, a tread speed of 20 km/h, and an internal pressure of 1.5 bar.
Schwalbe’s test rig measures the instantaneous power required to maintain a speed of 20 km/h. Measurable rolling resistance occurs because a tire is not a perfectly-shaped, purely elastic rubber ball. When in contact with the ground, tires are continuously compressed and then return to their original shape. This behavior is viscoelastic – meaning the compression and decompression phases differ significantly. The energy required to compress the tire is not fully and instantly returned during decompression. The tire exhibits what’s known as hysteresis behavior, where energy is lost in the form of heat. Therefore, keeping the tire rolling requires constant physical effort – more specifically: flexing work. On the trail, that work comes from your legs. In Schwalbe’s lab, it’s done by an electric motor driving the wheel.
Incidentally, with cars, the rolling resistance is determined in a similar way according to DIN EN ISO 28580. Fun fact: The rolling resistance coefficients of the heavily treaded mountain bike tires in our test fall between 10 and 20 per mille. Car tires, by comparison, typically range between 5 and 10 per mille – so they naturally roll better on smooth surfaces.
More robust casing = higher rolling resistance?
Does a tire with a more durable casing generate more rolling resistance? The theory sounds plausible at first: since there’s more material to deform, more energy – so-called hysteresis loss – is required while rolling. In many cases, this assumption proves true in testing – but not always!
The biggest surprise in our test came from the MAXXIS ASSEGAI: despite identical dimensions and rubber compound, the DH casing version rolls better than the Doubledown. One possible explanation: the DH casing features a coarser 60 TPI fabric, whereas the Doubledown uses a finer 120 TPI weave. The coarser DH fabric might offer more deformation resistance, causing it to flex less under the set pressure of 1.5 bar – meaning less energy is lost to deformation. However, this “phenomenon” can’t be transferred one-to-one to real-world trail riding: in reality, a DH casing would typically be run at a lower pressure – one of its core advantages. That, in turn, would increase rolling resistance again.
There are also several other models that show the same behavior. The Continental Kryptotal Fr with Super Soft compound rolls more efficiently with the Downhill casing than with the Enduro casing. A Schwalbe Magic Mary rolls better with the Super Downhill casing than with the Super Gravity casing. And even a Specialized Butcher requires slightly less power on the test bench with the Grid Gravity casing compared to its counterpart with the slimmer Grid Trail casing.
So if you opt for a DH casing for your enduro bike and end up going on longer rides, you can save a good amount of energy on firm, flat terrain by running higher tire pressures – while still enjoying the benefits of a more robust casing on the descents by letting some air out in time.
Chunky knobs roll faster?
Our rolling resistance test confirms that a MAXXIS HighRoller 3 rolls better than a comparable ASSEGAI from the Taiwanese brand. The HighRoller requires three watts less to maintain the target speed of 20 km/h on our test bench – even though it has taller knobs. However, those knobs are stable enough not to buckle. That’s also one of the main reasons why the HighRoller 3 makes for such a great all-rounder.
The MAXXIS Shorty shows that taller knobs don’t always mean lower rolling resistance. Its equally tall knobs are softer, so they fold more easily on hard surfaces – creating deformation losses. This leads to increased rolling resistance. Still, don’t shy away from mounting a tire like this on the front wheel in winter – because of the lower load on the front wheel (especially on climbs), the added rolling resistance is far less noticeable. The extra grip on descents, on the other hand, makes a big difference!
Massive weight fluctuations without a reason?
Why does a MAXXIS ASSEGAI MaxxGrip with DH casing weigh only 40 grams more than a comparable Doubledown tire? That’s a welcome upgrade for such a minimal weight gain – after all, the Downhill casing withstands 100 mm more drop height in the impact test and is around 110 N more resistant to punctures. But on the MAXXIS website, an 80 g difference is stated between the two casing versions. However, these are always average values, since all tires have weight fluctuations, which are sometimes even specified by the manufacturer. For our test, we simply got a light Downhill version and a heavy Doubledown version.
That said, we also observed significantly bigger differences: with WTB, we found discrepancies of up to 300 g. While this involved a different tread pattern, a weight variation of that magnitude strongly suggests a larger production tolerance.
But where do these fluctuations actually come from? As we experienced firsthand during our visit to the Specialized S-Works Tire Factory, tire manufacturing is a process that involves a lot of manual labor. Tires are assembled by hand from various layers (carcass, rubber compound and, in some cases, puncture protection layers). This can lead to slight differences in how the layers are positioned and where they overlap. It’s also important to remember that the rubber compound used for the tread is largely made from natural rubber – which, by its very nature, is subject to natural variation. Something no one thinks about when it comes to puncture protection.
What no one considers when it comes to puncture protection.
When we talk about puncture protection, most people immediately think of the tire casing. Rightly so – every brand shows a clear trend: casings marketed as more robust also deliver significantly better puncture resistance in lab tests. But if you look closer, you’ll notice that there are still major differences even between tires with the same casing construction.
One key factor besides the casing is the rubber compound. Take the Michelin Wild Enduro Front from the Competition Line, which we tested with two different compounds: Gum-X3D and Magi-X². Both versions have nearly identical weights and the same casing structure, but the tire with the Magi-X² compound withstood a full 90 mm more drop height in our impact test. The enhanced damping properties of the Magi-X² compound don’t just improve grip and comfort – they also boost protection against damage.
With its specific knob size and arrangement, the tread pattern has an impact, too, especially during the impact test. A closer look at the test setup reveals why: the 19 kg wedge is aligned using a laser marker before the test. The goal is for the wedge to hit between the knobs as precisely as possible. However, depending on the tread design, the wedge may still be intercepted by the outer knobs.
This explains why different tires (or tread patterns) can achieve varying levels of puncture protection – even when they share the same casing and rubber compound. For example, there’s a notable difference between Specialized’s Cannibal and Butcher models, even though both were tested in the lab with a Grid Gravity casing and T9 compound.
Is this purely a lab effect that favors tires with denser knob spacing? No, because if the test wedge can strike between the knobs in the lab, the same scenario can happen out on the trail. So if puncture protection is your top priority, don’t just choose the heaviest casing and the rubber compound with the best damping characteristics – also look for a tread pattern with tightly spaced knobs.
Rubber compound and tread layout play a crucial role in puncture protection!
The data from the puncture tests reveal a clear pattern: on average, tires showed greater resistance to punctures on the tread area when tested with the 5 mm chisel. However, there are exceptions where the sidewall proved more robust than the tread. That said, the standard deviation of the sidewall measurements is around 20 N higher than that of the tread. This indicates that not all manufacturers use protective layers that extend from bead to bead.
Conclusions of the tire test
With heavier tires, you inevitably get more puncture protection. But the rubber compound and tread pattern also play a decisive role in puncture resistance. Rolling resistance, on the other hand, is largely independent of weight — and therefore of puncture protection too. High puncture resistance with low rolling resistance is definitely possible – if the manufacturer’s product portfolio allows it. That’s why it’s so valuable when brands offer their tires in as many rubber compounds and casing options as possible.
The raw data from the tire test at a glance
Last but not least: The promised raw data so you can get the full insight or use it for your own analysis. Happy nerding!
Continental
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kryptotal-Re Soft Compound Enduro-Casing 29 x 2,40 | 1.200 | 33,2 | 340 | 110,8 | 611,6 | 356,5 | 409,4 |
| Kryptotal-Fr Soft Compound Enduro-Casing 29 x 2,40 | 1.167 | 35,2 | 400 | 129,1 | 600,9 | 385,7 | 420,4 |
| Kryptotal-Fr SuperSoft Compound Downhill-Casing 29 x 2,40 | 1.310 | 41,5 | 440 | 146,9 | 735,0 | 534,5 | 537,2 |
| Kryptotal-Fr SuperSoft Compound Enduro-Casing 29 x 2,40 | 1.208 | 42,3 | 410 | 101,0 | 535,9 | 395,6 | 392,8 |
| Argotal SuperSoft Compound Enduro-Casing 29 x 2,40 | 1.227 | 46,5 | 390 | 106,9 | 498,7 | 373,0 | 370,1 |
Kenda
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Double Black Triple Compound ALL MOUNTAIN 29 x 2,40 | 1.036 | 30,8 | 320 | 142,3 | 585,3 | 354,6 | 404,4 |
| Pinner Dual Layer Compound ENDURO 29 x 2,40 | 1.202 | 39,8 | 480 | 119,9 | 611,5 | 651,0 | 529,0 |
| Double Black Dual Layer Compound ENDURO 29 x 2,40 | 1.258 | 41,6 | 510 | 127,3 | 522,7 | 592,1 | 471,3 |
MAXXIS
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASSEGAI 3C MaxxTerra EXO Protection 29 x 2,50 WT | 1.109 | 29,7 | 290 | 142,9 | 615,2 | 388,2 | 430,0 |
| DISSECTOR 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown 29 x 2,40 WT | 1.139 | 32,4 | 410 | 134,9 | 656,0 | 526,2 | 499,9 |
| Minion DHR 2 3C MaxxTerra DH Casing 29 x 2,50 WT | 1.380 | 34,3 | 580 | 163,0 | 685,2 | 541,6 | 523,3 |
| Minion DHR 2 Dual Compound DH Casing WIRE 29 x 2,40 WT | 1.373 | 35,6 | 580 | 154,2 | 664,6 | 580,4 | 528,8 |
| Minion DHR 2 3C MaxxTerra Doubledown 29 x 2,40 WT | 1.202 | 36,5 | 480 | 146,1 | 646,6 | 516,9 | 494,6 |
| Minion DHR 2 3C MaxxGrip Doubledown 29 x 2,50 WT | 1.275 | 50,1 | 420 | 123,0 | 593,1 | 512,3 | 466,8 |
| ASSEGAI 3C MaxxGrip EXO+ Protection 29 x 2,50 WT | 1.211 | 50,2 | 380 | 117,1 | 586,2 | 385,2 | 412,0 |
| Minion DHF 3C MaxxGrip DoubleDown 29 x 2,50 WT | 1.316 | 52,2 | 440 | 130,6 | 606,3 | 461,1 | 453,1 |
| Minion DHR 2 3C MaxxGrip DH Casing 29 x 2,40 WT | 1.331 | 52,2 | 590 | 142,5 | 636,4 | 544,8 | 501,0 |
| HighRoller 3C MaxxGrip Doubledown 29 x 2,40 WT | 1.268 | 52,8 | 480 | 151,3 | 643,9 | 549,5 | 507,6 |
| ASSEGAI 3C MaxxGrip DH Casing 29 x 2,50 WT | 1.440 | 53,6 | 610 | 157,2 | 671,0 | 621,8 | 548,5 |
| ASSEGAI 3C MaxxGrip Doubledown 29 x 2,50 WT | 1.401 | 55,6 | 510 | 147,5 | 621,3 | 461,8 | 462,7 |
| Shorty 3C MaxxGrip Doubledown 29 x 2,40 WT | 1.256 | 57,0 | 470 | 131,6 | 566,2 | 511,4 | 457,3 |
Michelin
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild Enduro Front Competition Line GUM-X3D 29 x 2,40 | 1.049 | 28,2 | 270 | 151,5 | 556,9 | 433,2 | 426,4 |
| Wild Enduro (Rear) Racing Line Gum-X3D 29 x 2,40 | 1.183 | 30,2 | 500 | 121,1 | 520,4 | 446,0 | 410,8 |
| Wild Enduro Rear Competition Line 29 x 2,40 | 1.220 | 35,8 | 420 | 150,3 | 471,4 | 542,8 | 435,7 |
| Wild Enduro MS Racing Line Magi-X 29 x 2,40 | 1.210 | 42,5 | 500 | 138,1 | 505,3 | 559,1 | 453,4 |
| Wild Enduro Front Competition Line Magi-X2 29 x 2,40 | 1.047 | 44,6 | 360 | 163,6 | 521,6 | 410,0 | 405,3 |
| Wild Enduro MH Racing Line Magi-X 29 x 2,50 | 1.299 | 47,0 | 490 | 143,4 | 541,7 | 501,1 | 445,8 |
| DH16 Racing Line Hard Pack Mixed 29 x 2,40 | 1.370 | 48,0 | 520 | 139,3 | 496,4 | 574,6 | 456,3 |
| DH22 Racing Line Mixed Soft 29 x 2,40 | 1.345 | 49,6 | 520 | 141,9 | 517,2 | 589,9 | 471,2 |
Pirelli
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scorpion Enduro R SmartGRIP Compound HardWALL 29 x 2,60 | 1.061 | 27,4 | 340 | 118,4 | 590,5 | 421,4 | 428,4 |
| Scorpion Enduro M SmartGRIP Gravity HARDWALL 29 x 2,40 | 982 | 32,1 | 330 | 117,3 | 603,9 | 494,8 | 462,9 |
| Scorpion Enduro S SmartGRIP Gravity HARDWALL 29 x 2,40 | 1.062 | 33,8 | 290 | 108,2 | 613,0 | 452,2 | 447,7 |
| Scorpion eMTB M SmartGRIP Gravity HyperWall 29 x 2,60 | 1.220 | 35,8 | 420 | 150,3 | 471,4 | 542,8 | 435,7 |
| Scorpion Race Enduro M SmartEVO DH DualWALL 29 x 2,50 | 1.355 | 47,9 | 410 | 103,3 | 582,3 | 528,1 | 464,8 |
| Scorpion Race Enduro T SmartEVO DH DualWALL 29 x 2,50 | 1.336 | 50,0 | 460 | 118,8 | 599,6 | 477,9 | 454,8 |
| Scorpion Race DH M SmartEVO DH DualWALL+ 29 x 2,50 | 1.551 | 51,7 | 520 | 111,0 | 612,5 | 474,7 | 457,1 |
Schwalbe
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hans Dampf Super Gravity ADDIX Soft 29 x 2,35 | 1.219 | 28,2 | 490 | 148,3 | 720,6 | 563,1 | 543,2 |
| Tacky Chan ADDIX Soft Super Gravity 29 x 2,40 | 1.260 | 29,3 | 510 | 144,6 | 717,4 | 703,6 | 597,3 |
| Big Betty ADDIX Soft Super Gravity 29 x 2,60 | 1.335 | 31,3 | 510 | 147,1 | 673,4 | 625,4 | 549,0 |
| Albert ADDIX Soft GRAVITY PRO Radial 29 x 2,40 | 1.355 | 36,7 | 465 | 137,1 | 532,0 | 498,2 | 439,5 |
| Tacky Chan ADDIX Ultra Soft Super Downhill 29 x 2,40 | 1.356 | 45,2 | 590 | 156,8 | 750,0 | 740,0 | 627,3 |
| Tacky Chan ADDIX Ultra Soft Super Gravity 29 x 2,40 | 1.271 | 46,9 | 515 | 118,4 | 724,0 | 705,0 | 595,3 |
| Magic Mary ADDIX Ultra Soft Super Downhill 29 x 2,40 | 1.394 | 47,6 | 590 | 190,0 | 756,5 | 759,8 | 644,5 |
| Magic Mary ADDIX Ultra Soft Super Gravity 29 x 2,40 | 1.243 | 47,9 | 515 | 138,3 | 695,1 | 582,0 | 538,5 |
| Albert ADDIX Ultra Soft GRAVITY PRO Radial 29 x 2,50 | 1.352 | 49,6 | 460 | 125,0 | 523,2 | 454,1 | 415,9 |
| Magic Mary ADDIX Ultra Soft TRAIL PRO Radial 29 x 2,50 | 1.080 | 51,3 | 330 | 120,1 | 540,2 | 314,7 | 366,0 |
| Magic Mary ADDIX Ultra Soft GRAVITY PRO Radial 29 x 2,50 | 1.361 | 52,2 | 480 | 123,4 | 564,5 | 454,9 | 432,4 |
Specialized
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eliminator T7/T9 Grid Gravity 29 x 2,40 | 1.363 | 38,8 | 650 | 120,0 | 536,6 | 598,7 | 478,1 |
| Butcher T9 Grid Gravity 29 x 2,40 | 1.334 | 50,1 | 500 | 121,9 | 611,2 | 599,0 | 508,4 |
| Purgatory T9 Grid Trail 29 x 2,40 | 1.042 | 50,1 | 280 | 111,3 | 641,9 | 559,1 | 502,7 |
| Butcher T9 Grid Trail 29 x 2,40 | 1.082 | 51,4 | 340 | 146,7 | 604,4 | 535,5 | 485,3 |
| Cannibal T9 Grid Gravity 29 x 2,40 | 1.369 | 52,3 | 640 | 159,7 | 718,1 | 588,0 | 554,4 |
| Hiilbilly T9 Grid Trail 29 x 2,40 | 1.065 | 53,5 | 320 | 114,4 | 670,3 | 549,3 | 510,7 |
VeeTire
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attack FSX Full 40 GXE 29 x 2,50 | 1.234 | 52,4 | 390 | 134,9 | 584,5 | 475,8 | 451,1 |
| Attack HPL Full 40 GXE 29 x 2,50 | 1.289 | 53,9 | 390 | 164,3 | 565,4 | 406,3 | 421,5 |
| Snap WCE MK2 Full 40 GXE 29 x 2,50 | 1.323 | 54,5 | 410 | 184,4 | 552,1 | 400,6 | 418,0 |
| Snap WLT Full 40 GXE 29 x 2,35 | 1.125 | 54,7 | 360 | 138,6 | 567,5 | 440,4 | 430,9 |
WTB
| Model | Weight [g] | Rolling resistance [W] | Impact resistance [mm] |
Puncture resistance tread 1.5 mm blunt [N] |
Tread puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Sidewall puncture resistance 5 mm chisel [N] |
Average puncture resistance all tests[N] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trail Boss TriTec Fast Rolling Tough 29 x 2,40 | 1.538 | 38,1 | 570 | 125,7 | 590,0 | 503,6 | 462,6 |
| Verdict SG1 TriTec High Grip Tough 29 x 2,50 | 1.311 | 47,5 | 540 | 119,9 | 520,5 | 479,9 | 424,1 |
| Vigilante SG1 TriTec High Grip Tough 29 x 2,50 | 1.605 | 56,9 | 530 | 102,5 | 475,9 | 435,0 | 384,8 |
Did you enjoy this article? If so, we would be stoked if you decide to support us with a monthly contribution. By becoming a supporter of ENDURO, you will help secure a sustainable future for high-quality mountain bike journalism. Click here to learn more.
Words: Lars Engmann Photos: Peter Walker
