Everything You Think About XC Tyres Is Wrong!

When it comes to cross-country racing, there are certain things we just accept as fact. Not because we've tested them, not because we've questioned them, but just because that's how it's always been done. And when it comes to tires, the rule has always been simple. Run the fastest rolling tread you can get away

with, even if it's a bit damp, even if it's a little bit loose, because rolling speed is everything, right? But what if we've been sacrificing grip for almost nothing? What if the tire that actually feels slower makes you faster? To find out, I'm going to head to [music] a proper rolling resistance test rig to

try out a whole heap of different tire tread patterns, and then try them out on the trail to find out what really works in the real world. >> [music]

>> If you had a quick look around the pits at any cross-country race, you'd be hard-pressed to find a tire that has any more tread on it than a tennis ball, because less tread means more speed, right? I mean, Nino Schurter always used to run the fastest rolling tires. So naturally, we should all too. But

recently, I was looking on bicycle rolling resistance.com, as you do, comparing a couple of Vittoria XC tires I've got. A Mezcal in a 2.4 in the XC Race compound, and also a Barzo in an XC Race compound in a 2.4. And the Barzo, what I presumed to be a slightly slower, more treaded tire, only measured 1.6 W

slower, which is absolutely nothing, right? And then Owen, our resident bike nerd, showed me another independent test that compared the Barzo to Vittoria's superfast XC tire, the Peyote. And at 18 mph on rough gravel, they reckon the Peyote was only 1 W faster than the Barzo. 1 W? Now, I know these tests use different