A couple sets of Bontrager tires just arrived at MTBGearTech.com. The FR4 2.35 and the Big Earl 2.5(Dry) are great looking tires that combine a durable carcass with reasonable weights. The Big Earl 2.5(Dry) is weighing in at a light 727g while the FR4 2.35 is a respectable 899g. Both tires feature a folding aramid bead that is a tight fit on my MTX33 rims. It doesn’t look like I’ll have any problems with them rolling off the rim during hard turns or off camber landings.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The FR4, as seen on the left, has an aggressive tread pattern that has a square profile with low center lugs. There is a continuous row of tall side lugs that will hopefully provide additional grip in the turns and off camber sections. The 2.35 width is misleading as this is a high volume tire with a large contact patch. This tire has a two ply casing that feels reasonably stiff and strong in your hands. The FR4 is designated as TLR or tubeless ready. Using a rim strip and Bontrager’s Super Juice tubeless tire sealant will allow you the benefits of a tubeless setup. I will initially be running the FR4 with tubes but I may get the urge to try them tubeless down the road.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Big Earl 2.5 dry compound folding bead tire has a huge volume and a very open tread design. Although this is a single ply tire the sidewall thickness is impressive and I would expect that this tire will hold up to all but the most extreme abuse. The Big earl has a rounder profile than the FR4 with monstrous side lugs placed lower or closer to the rim. This tire should be a bunch of fun in dry conditions on both loose and hardpacked soils and with it’s light weight (for a freeride tire) it shouldn’t be too bad to pedal for longer distances on more all-mountain style trails.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I’ll report back on performance as soon I rack up some trail time on these bad boys. Tires are one of the components I enjoy testing the most. It’s something that can instantly and dramatically change the performance and feel of the bike. It’s great to have so many solid choices in tires like we do right now. The more riders we have out there snuffing out the really great ones and reporting back the the community the better.
Related posts:
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Picasa
YouTube
I roll on the big earls and I love ‘em. I’ve got 6 of them hangin’ in the garage. I hope you like them as much as I do. They are really grippy in the corners and accelerate like a bat outta hell. The wear is pretty good for how light they are. The only time they wear fast is if you do a lot of wood ladders. The wood seems to tear the lugs on the side. But thats after a few weeks of Boyne riding. So if most of your riding is done in the dirt you’ll like the tire. I can’t wait to hear what you have to say about them…mainly because if you’re testing them that means it’s warm outside!
The Big Earls that I got look different from the picture. I believe those are the wet compound which I think is what you run. The dry compound has slightly fatter lugs and no “x” cuts on them. We’ll see how they do, they look pretty good so far.
I’ve ridden the wet and dry earls, the wets have proven to be much better. The drys got destroyed in about 2 months of occasional riding. That being said, their performance was pretty decent. I donno I go back and forth between loving them and hating them sometimes. I got a set through my old shop for $18 each at cost though, so I can’t really complain.
That surprises me since they are a dual compound, 62a center knobs and 52a side knobs. Were your drys the “gum-bi” compound? That’s what I have here. We’ll see how they do, I love trying new tires (as long as they are bad and nearly kill me LOL).
oops, I said that backwards. I meant to say the wets sucked but the gum-bi’s were much better.
By the way does that FR4 really weigh the claimed 875 grams? If so I think I found my new rear tire for my 160mm bike.
Of the 4 FR4s that I have on hand three weigh 899g and the other 897g so they’re a bit more than 875g but not much. I hope the grip is great because I’m diggin everything else about this tire.
The FR4 is a two ply tire that weighs 900g? That would be the lightest two ply ever! Is it designed for DH or AM? What tread compound does it use?
Looks pretty good.
It’s a thin two ply so don’t expect it to be as burly as say a Minion DH. They use a dual compound but I’m not sure of the durometers. The lugs feel pretty compliant though, we’ll see how they hold up. I got out yesterday and did some fast flat turns on a hardpacked bike trail and softer dirt and the tires had a nice predictable feel. They slip a little then grab when you lean in a bit more on the hardpack but just dig in and rail on the slightly softer stuff. the side lugs feel like they’ll fold over quite a bit on hardpack so these may be better for loose or softer soil conditions.
Jake gave my buddy one of the Earls to use. It was the “Bald” Earl edition… not sure what it started out as but it worked really well at Wisp in the rain.
Good news for those of you considering the FR4s. I had them out yesterday and was very happy with the overall performance on the loose-dry to moderately tacky soil at Horn’s Hill. There’s excellent control in the corners but it’s hard to explain exactly how they feel. I would compare them to a brake that modulates well. You can easily slide or get them to hook up with different body/bike positioning. Grip under braking was acceptable, not crazy great or anything but they do a good job of slowing you down in a controllable manner when you’re on the brakes.
I ran them ghetto tubeless using 42# rear and 36# front tire pressures. That may seem high to some of you but with my 220# weight I feel this is the best compromise between traction and not destroying my rims.