Kenda Pinner
Enduro
Front
Kenda Pinner vs Michelin Wild Enduro Front
Short answer: Rolling resistance: Michelin Wild Enduro Front leads with 28.2 W, Kenda Pinner trails by 11.6 W.
Michelin Wild Enduro Front
Enduro
Front
Configure your build
Width, casing, compound and pressure – every value on this page follows your pick.
Kenda Pinner
Michelin Wild Enduro Front
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.
Kenda Pinner: Reference: documented test pressure of the source (24.7 psi (1.70 bar)).
Michelin Wild Enduro Front: 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
| Kenda Pinner | Michelin Wild Enduro Front | |
|---|---|---|
| Width | 2.4" (61 mm) | 2.4" (61 mm) |
| Wheel sizes | 27.5" · 29" | 27.5" · 29" |
| Weight | 1,240 g (29x2.4 AGC) | 1,160 g (29x2.4 Racing Line) |
| Casing | AGC (Advanced Gravity Casing) · 1-ply | Gravity Shield · 2-ply |
| Casing | Trail | Enduro |
| TPI | 60 | 60 |
| Tread type | – | Aggressive |
| Tubeless ready | yes | yes |
| E-MTB approval | yes (E-25) | yes |
| Price from | €75 | €64 |
| Model year | 2020 | 2018 |
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.
Michelin Wild Enduro Front offers the softer compound range – more grip, usually at the cost of wear.
Lab data per version
| Kenda Pinner | Michelin Wild Enduro Front | |
|---|---|---|
| Rolling resistance (W) | 39.8 W | 28.2 W |
| Impact protection (%) | 56.6 % | 8.7 % |
| Puncture resistance (N) | – | 426.4 N |
| Weighed weight (g) | 1,202.0 g | 1,049.0 g |
These two tires have no measured values from the same test series. A direct comparison of numbers would not be sound.
Kenda Pinner
Michelin Wild Enduro Front
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.
| Wild Enduro Front Competition Line GUM-X3D | 29 x 2.40 | 28.2 W | 8.67 % | 1049 g | 63.43 € |
| Wild Enduro Front Competition Line MAGI-X2 | 29 x 2.40 | 44.6 W | 19.87 % | 1047 g | 67.71 € |
Rolling resistance
lower is better
- Wild Enduro Front Competition Line GUM-X3D28.2 W
- Wild Enduro Front Competition Line MAGI-X244.6 W
Impact protection
higher is better
- Wild Enduro Front Competition Line GUM-X3D8.67 %
- Wild Enduro Front Competition Line MAGI-X219.87 %
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.
- 28.2 W at 25 psi (1.72 bar) · Reference
- Puncture
- 8.67 %
- Weight
- 1049 g
- 39.4 W at 25 psi (1.72 bar) · +11.2 W
- Puncture
- 56.56 %
- Weight
- 1202 g
- 44.6 W at 25 psi (1.72 bar) · +16.4 W
- Puncture
- 19.87 %
- Weight
- 1047 g
Without a lab test pressure we anchor the measured watt value at the recommended pressure. 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.
| Kenda PinnerPinner Dual Layer Compound Enduro | 39.8 W | 56.56 % | 1202 g |
| Michelin Wild Enduro FrontWild Enduro Front Competition Line GUM-X3D | 28.2 W | 8.67 % | 1049 g |
| Michelin Wild Enduro FrontWild Enduro Front Competition Line MAGI-X2 | 44.6 W | 19.87 % | 1047 g |
Charts
Rolling resistance (fewer watts is better)
Impact protection (higher is better)
Editorial rating (higher is better)
At least one tire is missing too many editorial scores for a radar profile. We never draw missing values as zero.
TestedYour build – derived
Recommendation by use
- Fast laps and long climbs: Michelin Wild Enduro Front rolls easier at 28.2 W.
- Bike park, rocks and e-MTB: Kenda Pinner protects better with 57% impact protection.
Tested
- Rolling resistance: Michelin Wild Enduro Front leads with 28.2 W, Kenda Pinner trails by 11.6 W.
- Impact protection: Kenda Pinner leads with 56.6 %, Michelin Wild Enduro Front trails by 47.9 %.
- Weighed weight: Michelin Wild Enduro Front leads with 1,049 g, Kenda Pinner trails by 153 g.
Tests and sources
Kenda Pinner
The Kenda Pinner Pro ATC, Aaron Gwin's signature tire, was extensively ridden on various cornering trails. The large knobs deliver plenty of grip on firm, dry ground, while weight stays reasonable thanks to the light ATC compound. The tire also proves practical for longer tours.
BIKE MagazinThe Kenda Pinner Pro, co-developed with Aaron Gwin, was initially tested in its downhill version. The tire shows very predictable handling with strong grip on hard, dry ground. It specifically targets riders who race on fast, grippy tracks.
MTB-News.de
Michelin Wild Enduro Front
ENDURO'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 – LabortestThe review examines the Michelin Wild Enduro Front under tough enduro riding, describing its cornering and braking behaviour on changing terrain. The editors contextualize Michelin's comeback in the MTB tire market and compare rubber compounds and casing options. Overall the front tire is rated as solid but not outstanding.
MTB-News.de