Continental Dubnital
Trail
Front+Rear
Continental Dubnital vs Maxxis Dissector
Short answer: Rolling resistance: Continental Dubnital leads with 22.3 W, Maxxis Dissector trails by 10.1 W.
Maxxis Dissector
Trail
Front+Rear
Configure your build
Width, casing, compound and pressure – every value on this page follows your pick.
Continental Dubnital
Maxxis Dissector
Measured value available
How we calculate
Width, casing and compound decide how a tire really rides. We only show what was actually measured – and label estimates honestly.
Continental Dubnital: Reference: recommended pressure 24 psi (1.65 bar) – an assumption, not a test pressure.
Maxxis Dissector: 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.
Size, weight and casing
| Continental Dubnital | Maxxis Dissector | |
|---|---|---|
| Width | 2.2" · 2.4" (55 · 60 mm) | 2.4" · 2.6" (61 · 66 mm) |
| Wheel sizes | 27.5" · 29" | 27.5" · 29" |
| Weight | 691 g | 1,010 g (29x2.4 WT EXO+) |
| Casing | Trail | EXO+ · 1-ply |
| Casing | Trail | Trail · Enduro · Downhill |
| TPI | – | 120 |
| Tread type | Intermediate | Intermediate |
| Tubeless ready | yes | yes |
| E-MTB approval | no | no |
| Price from | €67 | €64 |
| Model year | 2025 | 2020 |
Rubber compounds
Hardness scale 1 = hard and fast to 5 = very soft and grippy (our own classification).
Both tires sit in the same grip class – the watt comparison is fair.
Both tires sit on the same step of our editorial hardness scale.
Lab data per version
| Continental Dubnital | Maxxis Dissector | |
|---|---|---|
| Rolling resistance (W) | 22.3 W | 32.4 W |
| Impact protection (%) | – | 41.3 % |
| Puncture resistance (N) | – | 499.9 N |
| Wet grip measurement (points) | 70.0 points | – |
| Weighed weight (g) | 691.0 g | 1,139.0 g |
These two tires have no measured values from the same test series. A direct comparison of numbers would not be sound.
Continental Dubnital
All tested versions
Test series: Bicycle Rolling Resistance – MTB-Messreihe
Measured values per compound and casing from the same laboratory test. Empty cells mean no reliable value was published.
| Dubnital Race Grip 2.4 | 29 x 2.40 | 26.5 W | 71 | 41 | – | 56 mm | 664 g | – |
| Dubnital Race Rapid 2.2 | 29 x 2.20 | 20.2 W | 69 | 44 | – | 52 mm | 609 g | – |
| Dubnital Race Rapid 2.4 | 29 x 2.40 | 20.6 W | 70 | 40 | – | 56 mm | 635 g | – |
| Dubnital Trail Rapid 2.4 | 29 x 2.40 | 22.3 W | 70 | 42 | – | 56 mm | 691 g | – |
Wet grip is measured in the lab on a hard wet surface – it is not off-road grip.
Rolling resistance
lower is better
- Dubnital Race Rapid 2.220.2 W
- Dubnital Race Rapid 2.420.6 W
- Dubnital Trail Rapid 2.422.3 W
- Dubnital Race Grip 2.426.5 W
Maxxis Dissector
All tested versions
Test series: ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine – Labortest 64 Reifen
Measured values per compound and casing from the same laboratory test. Empty cells mean no reliable value was published.
| Dissector Gen. 1 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown | 29 x 2.40 WT | 32.4 W | 41.33 % | 1139 g | 84.9 € |
| Dissector Gen. 2 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown | 29 x 2.40 WT | 30.6 W | 41.08 % | 1190 g | 84.9 € |
Rolling resistance
lower is better
- Dissector Gen. 2 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown30.6 W
- Dissector Gen. 1 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown32.4 W
Impact protection
higher is better
- Dissector Gen. 2 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown41.08 %
- Dissector Gen. 1 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown41.33 %
Compounds & versions as curves
Up to three versions at once: the curve is modelled rolling resistance across pressure, the dot is the real lab measurement. Click the legend to show or hide a version.
- 22.9 W at 24 psi (1.65 bar) · Reference
- Wet grip (lab)
- 70
- Puncture
- –
- Weight
- 609 g
- 23.3 W at 24 psi (1.65 bar) · +0.4 W
- Wet grip (lab)
- 70
- Puncture
- –
- Weight
- 635 g
- 25.2 W at 24 psi (1.65 bar) · +2.4 W
- Wet grip (lab)
- 70
- Puncture
- –
- Weight
- 691 g
- 26.5 W
- Wet grip (lab)
- 70
- Puncture
- –
- Weight
- 664 g
- 30.6 W
- Wet grip (lab)
- –
- Puncture
- 41.08 %
- Weight
- 1190 g
- 32.4 W
- Wet grip (lab)
- –
- Puncture
- 41.33 %
- Weight
- 1139 g
The curve shape is a physics model, not a measurement. Labs do not measure grip across pressure – we do not invent that curve. Wet grip is a lab value per tire model, not per version.
Three curves at most – hide one first.
Variants head to head
Every measured variant of the selected tires – the same model in another compound, width or casing sits right next to it. Empty fields mean no reliable measurement.
| Continental DubnitalDubnital Race Grip 2.4 | 26.5 W | – | 664 g |
| Continental DubnitalDubnital Race Rapid 2.2 | 20.2 W | – | 609 g |
| Continental DubnitalDubnital Race Rapid 2.4 | 20.6 W | – | 635 g |
| Continental DubnitalDubnital Trail Rapid 2.4 | 22.3 W | – | 691 g |
| Maxxis DissectorDissector Gen. 1 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown | 32.4 W | 41.33 % | 1139 g |
| Maxxis DissectorDissector Gen. 2 3C MaxxTerra DoubleDown | 30.6 W | 41.08 % | 1190 g |
Charts
Rolling resistance (fewer watts is better)
Impact protection (higher is better)
Editorial rating (higher is better)
TestedYour build – derived
Recommendation by use
- Wet roots and slippery ground: Continental Dubnital has the better wet grip.
Tested
- Rolling resistance: Continental Dubnital leads with 22.3 W, Maxxis Dissector trails by 10.1 W.
- Weighed weight: Continental Dubnital leads with 691 g, Maxxis Dissector trails by 448 g.
Tests and sources
Maxxis Dissector
BIKE tested the updated version of the well-regarded trail and enduro tire Maxxis Dissector and confirms improvements in several areas compared to the previous version.
BIKE MagazinThe editorial team put the second generation of the Maxxis Dissector through a first test, revealing improvements over the popular predecessor. The tire remains a fast choice for the rear wheel on firm, dry trails.
MTB-News.deENDURO'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.
ENDURO Mountainbike Magazine – Labortest