Image: manufacturer · Source
Maxxis
Tested
Weaker in comparison
52.2 W · rank 22 of 31 comparable Enduro tires
24.8 W behind the best value in the same test series. Fewer watts is better – every watt saved stays in the drivetrain.
Der Klassiker als Vorderreifen: kantige Seitenstollen mit sehr berechenbarem Kurvenverhalten.
Width, casing, compound and pressure – every value on this page follows your pick.
Width, casing and compound decide how a tire really rides. We only show what was actually measured – and label estimates honestly.
Reference: documented test pressure of the source (24.7 psi (1.70 bar)).
More pressure: less rolling resistance, less grip, less comfort. Tougher casing: more protection, more weight. Softer compound: more grip, more rolling resistance.
Modelled values are assumptions based on the stated measurement points – not a lab test.
Editorial assessment on a 1–10 scale. Grip index: 8.9
These grades describe the tire model, not one specific width or compound – no reliable per-version grades exist.
Scores from 1 to 10: higher is better.
Basis of these scores: Redaktionelle Einschätzung auf Basis von Herstellerangaben und veröffentlichten Praxistests
Every variant the manufacturer lists, with its own claimed data. Missing values stay blank.
| 27.5" | 2.3" · 58 mm | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxTerra | 929 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.3" · 58 mm | EXO(Trail) | Dual | 959 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxTerra | 962 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" | EXO+(Enduro) | 3C MaxxTerra | 969 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO(Trail) | Dual | 1004 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxGrip | 1015 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO(Trail) | MaxxTerra | 1032 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO+(Enduro) | 3C MaxxGrip | 1085 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO+(Enduro) | MaxxTerra | 1096 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" · 63 mm | DoubleDown(Enduro) | 3C MaxxGrip | 1232 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.5" · 63 mm | Downhill(Downhill) | 3C MaxxGrip | 1243 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.6" · 66 mm | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1025 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.6" · 66 mm | EXO(Trail) | Dual | 1051 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.6" · 66 mm | EXO+(Enduro) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1137 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.8" · 71 mm | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1081 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.8" · 71 mm | EXO(Trail) | Dual | 1110 g | ||
| 27.5" | 2.8" · 71 mm | EXO+(Enduro) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1196 g | ||
| 29" | 2.3" · 58 mm | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1015 g | ||
| 29" | 2.3" · 58 mm | EXO(Trail) | Dual | 1031 g | ||
| 29" | 2.3" · 58 mm | DoubleDown(Enduro) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1231 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" | EXO+(Enduro) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1037 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxGrip | 1092 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1099 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO(Trail) | Dual | 1099 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO(Trail) | MaxxTerra | 1105 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO+(Enduro) | 3C MaxxGrip | 1162 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | EXO+(Enduro) | MaxxTerra | 1163 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | DoubleDown(Enduro) | 3C MaxxGrip | 1313 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | DoubleDown(Enduro) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1314 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | Downhill(Downhill) | 3C MaxxGrip | 1423 g | ||
| 29" | 2.5" · 63 mm | Downhill (BikePark)(Downhill) | Dual | 1521 g | ||
| 29" | 2.6" | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxTerra | 999 g | ||
| 29" | 2.6" | EXO+(Enduro) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1087 g | ||
| 29" | 2.6" · 66 mm | EXO(Trail) | Dual | 1107 g | ||
| 29" | 2.6" · 66 mm | EXO(Trail) | MaxxTerra | 1116 g | ||
| 29" | 2.6" · 66 mm | EXO+(Enduro) | MaxxTerra | 1231 g | ||
| 29" | 3" · 76 mm | EXO(Trail) | 3C MaxxTerra | 1305 g |
The value in brackets is our brand-neutral casing class (Light, Trail, Enduro, Downhill) – not a manufacturer statement.
Real test-rig values – not an estimate. Tested variant: Minion DHF 3C MaxxGrip DoubleDown 29 x 2.50 WT.
Watts measured on the test rig: lower is better. The 1-10 ratings on this page: higher is better.
No lab of our own: measurements come from the third-party test named above – the source is linked directly.
Rank 22 of 31 · lower is better
Rank 20 of 33 · higher is better
Rank 9 of 14 · higher is better
Rank 22 of 31 · lower is better
Tested: Calculated from the stored measurements – compared only within the same test series and category (Enduro).
Weaker in comparison
52.2 W · rank 22 of 31 comparable Enduro tires
24.8 W behind the best value in the same test series. Fewer watts is better – every watt saved stays in the drivetrain.
Mid-field
39.4 % · rank 20 of 33 comparable Enduro tires
46.1 % behind the best value in the same test series. A higher percentage is better – the tire cushions hard edges for longer.
Mid-field
453.1 N · rank 9 of 14 comparable Enduro tires
144.2 N behind the best value in the same test series. More newtons is better – the casing withstands sharp rocks for longer.
Weaker in comparison
1,316 g · rank 22 of 31 comparable Enduro tires
334 g behind the best value in the same test series. Fewer grams is better, but usually costs casing stability.
In this test series the tire is below average for both rolling resistance and impact protection – other models do both better.
Measurements from different test rigs are not directly comparable – Sources & method.
Our own summaries – the full test is available at the source.
ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine – Labortest
January 2023ENDURO's lab test measures 64 MTB tires under standardised conditions (20 km/h, 1.5 bar, 50 kg wheel load) for rolling resistance, pinch-flat protection and puncture resistance. Key takeaway: weight and pinch-flat protection are closely linked, while rolling resistance depends mainly on the rubber compound. Summarised in our own words; details and measured values at the original.
To the source
Schwalbe
Michelin
