Hutchinson Toro RR Tire Review

Oct 8, 2013
by Richard Cunningham  

Hutchison's 27.5 X 2.35-inch Toro RR tire is the star of this review and at a distance, it closely resembles two popular competitors: the Maxxis High Roller and Kenda’s Nevegal. All share pronounced rows of stiff edging blocks, with a fast-rolling center tread comprised of low-profile blocks. Up close, however, the Hutchinson Toro’s tread design steps out of the box, with subtle changes in block-angle and tread profiling, which may give the Toro a decided advantage as a multi-condition, all-mountain/trail tire. Hutchinson makes the Toro in its factory in France, and offers it in a wide range of sizes and options, including a narrow cyclocross application, and in 24, 26, 27.5 and 29-inch mountain bike models. For this review, we chose the tubeless-ready 650B tire which is only available in the full-width, 2.35-inch, heavy-duty Hardskin casing, and with Hutchinson’s triple-compound ‘Race Riposte’ tread design. Hutchinson states the weight for the 2.35 Toro RR tire at 800-grams and its MSRP at $85 USD.

Hutchinson Toro 27.5 RR tire 2014

Hutchinson Toro RR 27.5 Tire:
• Purpose: All-mountain/Trail, Enduro
• Size reviewed: 27.5 x 2.35”
• Actual tire dimensions at 32psi: Height = 27.75” and width = 2.25” on 25.5mm ID rim
• Sizes available: 24 x 2.0” and 1.85” - 26 x 2.15,” 2.35” and 2.6” - 27.5 x 2.35” – 29 x 2.15” and 2.35”
• Casing: 60 TPI, Hardskin, nylon-mesh reinforced, tubeless-ready
• Bead: Kevlar, UST style
• Tread: All-condition, Race Riposte, triple-compound rubber
• Weight: 798 grams (weighed)
• MSRP: $85 USD

Toro RR Construction

Toro tires are manufactured at Hutchinson’s factory in Montargis, France, where they control every aspect of its construction, from raw rubber, compounding, casing construction, hand-layering the rubber for the tread and the final molding process. The Toro’s single-ply casing is 60 thread-per-inch fabric, with a closely woven nylon mesh layer called ‘Hardskin’ that is wrapped around the entire width of the casing to add abrasion and puncture resistance. Hutchinson goes one step further in its definition of ‘tubeless ready’ by adding a true UST-type bead to ensure easy inflation and a more secure seal.

Hutchinson Toro 27.5 RR tire 2014 labels

(From left) Hutchinson's new logo, Toro tread is directional. We measured the casing at 2.25 inches wide, but the tire appears a lot wider. Hutchinson molds a true UST tubeless bead for the Toro, but it still requires sealant. Hardskin is a tough mesh fabric liner that protects the casing - as is evident in the pics.

“RR” on the Toro’s hot-patch indicates that the tread is Hutchinson’s Race Riposte, triple rubber compound – a hard center-tread and a softer compound for the edging blocks, with a special under-tread layer that supports the center blocks so they will roll faster. The center tread blocks are closely spaced and topped with a concave depression which adds a second ‘edge’ at low angles of attack. The side-blocks have a deeper, rectangular depression that adds some flexibility to help the tire to grip on hard surfaces. The transition blocks are angled to match the slip-angle of the tire when it is steering up front, or drifting, when the Toro is used as a rear tire.

The center blocks are molded low and spaced apart to allow the Toro's casing to flex and thus roll more easily over rough surfaces. There are tiny diamond-shaped nubs in the center of the empty spaces between the crown tread to protect the casing from high-impact events. Toro tires are directional, with the rear and front reversed for best traction. While the Toro is billed as a 2.35-inch tire and it looks impressive on the rim, we measured it at 2.25-inches in its widest dimension – which turned out to be the casing - when mounted to a 25.5-millimeter ID, Stan’s ZTR Flow EX rim.

Toro 27.5 RR Trail Test

We mounted the Toro RR tires (as mentioned), tubeless, to Stan’s AM-width ZTR Flow EX rims and they aired up without a hitch. The tread profile is relatively flat, so there is no problem reaching the edging blocks when leaning the bike into a corner. Previously, our test bike was fitted with Schwalbe Hans Dampf 2.35-inch tires, with a much wider casing, and what we assumed to be a grippier tread pattern. Like the Hans Dampf, the Toro is sold as an all-condition tire, but most testing was done in dry conditions in various soil types that ranged from pea-gravel on rock-hard clay, to deep dust and sand, to slick-rock, and the volcanic pumice of Mammoth Mountain.

Hutchinson Toro 27.5 RR tire 2014 tread detail

Hutchinson formulated a durable rubber for the Toro's Race Riposte tread. The wear was minimal, considering that the test intervals were held almost exclusively on rocky terrain. Note the recess in the edging tread that allows the reinforced block to squeeze down slightly before it offers maximum resistance.

On trail: Test riders were initially hesitant to push the Toro hard on the slippery hardpack surfaces common to Southern California’s gravity tracks, but the Toro’s tread delivered the goods. The edging blocks grip at a multitude of lean angles and there is rarely any sense that the tire is transitioning from the center to the edging tread – a trait that is common to its look-alike cousins. The easy transition is a plus for 650B riders because the larger wheel requires a slightly more exaggerated lean angle to emulate a 26-inch bike in the turns.

Braking/climbing: Under braking, there was a lot of control, with the edging tread holding grip we began to set up for the turns. In a straight line, braking grip felt nearly as good as the Hans Dampf tire - arguably one of the all-time best stopping treads in that situation. A good braking tire is usually a grippy climbing tire as well, and we can report that the Toro can roll up sketchy climbs without forcing its power source to do anything goofy in order to maintain traction.

Rolling resistance: Where Hutchinson’s Toro really showed it merits, however, was its rolling resistance – or more precisely; its lack thereof. For a relatively aggressive tread pattern, the Toro builds and holds onto speed with an XC-tire-like feel. We found that pressures around 32 to 35 PSI gave the best straight-line results, while still maximizing cornering performance.

Wear: In the durability department, we ran the tires over sharp rock gardens nearly every day of testing and the tread and casing look unphased by the abuse. Wear was about right for a racing tire designed to handle gravity-oriented trail riding, with some noticeable abrasion on the center blocks, but otherwise, the Toros were in serviceable condition after a testing them most of summer. All the tread blocks were accounted for last time we took a roll call.

Comments: Overall, we liked the Toro design best up front, where its pointy blocks and great edging traction gave the bike a trustworthy feel down steeps and around corners. We would definitely choose the Toro for both ends of the bike where ultimate cornering traction was at stake, as it can find grip almost anywhere and drifts evenly fore and aft when traction is not forthcoming. That said, we found that its secure feel as a front choice allowed us to cheat a little and run a faster, slightly narrower rear tire for hardpack conditions when we were after KOM’s.

Pinkbike's take:
bigquotesHutchinson has a winner in the Toro RR. As mentioned, we did not get a chance to test the Toro in wet or loamy terrain, but considering where Hutchinson does most of its testing, we'd assume that it can hold its own on the roots. Speculation aside, what we can say with surety is that the Toro absolutely rocks as a dry condition tire for fast-paced, gravity-motivated trail riding. If you are a hard-driving bike-handler who still swears by the old standards we all grew up on, you owe it to yourself to try a pair of Hutchinson Toro RR tires. - RC



  • + 44
 Tire manufactures needs to be strongly criticized for their tire sizing. Why Hutchison marked their tire as 2.35 when it's 2.25? Why Conti named their Mountain King 2.2 as this tire hardly gets 2.0 when measure it? Maxxis also seems to have their size much narrow than claimed. The reason why they are doing this, I guess, is to make their tires looks lighter, while they are actually not, but that means they lie the consumers. Sorry guys, but this should stop. Big ups for Schwalbe for still doing the lightest tires and have their sizing right.
  • + 10
 My ardent 2.4 come up way wider than my minion 2.5
  • + 1
 Ardent 2.4's are GIGANTIC lol. When I had 2.4 front and back with maxxis freeride tubes I have people asking me if my 26 slayer was 27.5 literally every time i went riding.
  • + 2
 I think maxxis have begun to rectify their tyre sizes, I have a high roller 2.4 on the back of my bike that is wider than my 2.5 minion front, if you measure the casing or side knob to side knob.
  • + 2
 So? Shouldn't 2.4 HR be skinnier than 2.5 minion? Its been wider for years.
  • + 1
 yes, if you look at the metric sizing, Maxis 2.4s are larger than their 2.5s (in fact, the 2..25s are closer the 2.5s than they are to the 2.3s) A large part of the problem is different tire companies using the same imperial numbers for different metric casing sizes.
  • + 1
 Oh well, screw Maxxis, now that I realize how good Panaracer tires are I'm gonna stick with those for awhile... The CG series are all GREAT and cheap!
  • + 2
 There're so many variables with tires and how to measure them. The rim width, tire pressure, and where you measure from on the tire all come in to play. Also, if you look on most manufacturer's websites, under the weight, you will generally see +/-30 or something similar. This is because tires are incredibly hard to produce an exact carbon copy of, even when made on a robotized assembly line. Protip: Use the scale at your LBS when buying tires, because they're never exactly the claimed weight.
  • + 1
 Interesting, my 2.4 Trail Kings are pretty massive as well. My pal has 2.2 TK's and their closer to 2.35. Hooray for massive tires!
  • + 3
 It has something to do with the width of the rim you are using. Narrower rim=narrower tire
  • + 2
 why is it i've never read a negative review of (almost) anything on pinkbike? i almost feel more like i'm reading an advertisement, rather than an actual review
  • + 1
 For what it's worth, I took some time to install and measure a few tires (Racing Ralph 2.4, Ardent 2.4, Michelin Wild Rac'r 2.25, and a few others I can't recall right now) and was quite surprised by what I found. I would mount the tires, air them up to 40psi and leave them sit for a few days. All were mounted on a Velocity Blunt 35 and although some measured narrower at the casing than others (the Wild Rac'r was wider at the casing than the others actually), the big difference came at the knobs. The I had some Ardent's that ha been mounted up for 2 sesaons which measured @ 2.45" at the knobs, but both the Racing Ralph's and the Wild Rac'r measured @ 2.38" at the knobs. As a test I also mounted 1 or 2 tires on a Stan's Arch rim and found only a 3mm difference in the width but it made a huge difference in the profile.

Maybe I will have to go through this little exercise again and record the measurements other than in photos so I can find it easier next time.
  • + 1
 Don´t see the big number in colors, you has to review the ISO number in small and in black, that´s the real size of the tire. The big numbers are just reference and for marketing purposes.
  • + 1
 That's wonderful, when they're actually on the casing. not every manufacturer does it, though, or even makes the iso number availiable (Intense Tires, I'm looking at you.)
  • + 16
 Look, will you all stop with the complaining people. There are so many of you here with your "know it all", "of course blockhead!" attitudes it is enough to make RC, the two Mike's and the others give up on all of you. I would, so they are better men than me.

Thanks Richard for the review. I have never tried a set of Hutchinson's before and after reading this review, I might decide to give them a try. The review was informative in that, if one could be bothered to really read it, it suggested that the Toro RR seems to maintain a relatively consistent level of grip across a variety of "lean" angles, something that cannot always be said for one of it's competitors, the HR from Mavic. It also appears to do so without any loss of rolling speed; again, another very useful insight into the tyre, thank you PB for the heads up.

The advice that it may be suited to being run up front with a even faster rolling tyre out back is also useful information. Thanks.

So thanks PB for consistently giving me useful information on tyres so that I may waste less of my money buying tyres that do not suit the rider I am, or where I ride.
  • + 1
 Well, I have only one small complaint personally - it's autumn time right now in my country, so everything is permanently wet. Reviewing tires in dry weather and posting the info during autumn and winter is kind of eh. Otherwise review is good. Looks like this tire is very good in dry weather.
  • + 3
 Well that makes it spring in the other half of the world, so just about perfect for everyone else, which is my point: you are not as important as you think you are PB members so be thankful to everyone at PB for giving you anything at all. Goodnight.
  • + 1
 I did not post anything negative until writting a reply to you. I don't think that this review is bad. But there is a nuance Smile
  • + 1
 I think you mean High Roller from Maxxis...?
  • + 2
you seem to forget that people are entitled to their own opinions bud. If you don't like what others think, don't read it. Also, people have the right to complain and point out certain discrepancies between manufacturers.
  • + 3
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. the PB writers and reviewers are entitled to their professional opinions, as are us users. However, the staff here deserve better than being shot down by us lot telling them how they are reviewing combinations of a) the wrong stuff, b) stuff priced too high/low/ c) stuff they know better than the reviewers etc etc etc. it is a far too common theme on PB and the reviewers deserve better treatment from us, the users. When I first read this review some 9 hours ago, RC had gotten little except thinly veiled abuse and sarcasm. Well, sorry bud, but that is just downright disrespectful to someone trying to do a job for us. There is room for everyone's opinions here yet there are way too many who are all to ready to dismiss as irrelevant anything that is not directly aimed at them. Give the staff here some more respect people please, they are in the job for the love of the sport and their efforts help a wide variety of people, maybe not always you personally.
  • + 4
 @orientdave &c. No one on the Pinkbike staff is doing a job "for us." Because no PB user pays the staff a dime. We are not customers. PB's many bloggers, some of whom are decent writers, some of whom are more or less honest reviewers, all of them roll/telecommute in to work to do one thing: generate clicks. It's naive to think otherwise, and you, the user, won't be able to use the content effectively without seeing it through that lens. Fake polls (where the data are structured in a useless way) are for clicks. Wheelsize controversy is for clicks. Videos and photo epics where the thumbnail is a cutie are for clicks. There is some great stuff on this site every week, but sentiments like "RC is trying to help us out" are so off base. The haters who are skeptical of everything posted may have a style that you find juvenile or impolite, but at least they get that underneath the clicks, the content on any given page is an unedited, unpoliced stew of good and bad ideas, of true findings and totally made-up BS, and those skepital users are at least on guard against the marketing fantasy that is so deep PBers often can't express an idea about cycling without vomiting up a bunch of psuedo-engineer gobbledygook. You think RC is sad at home because Canadian 14 year olds are pissing down his back? I bet he's OK. Only the user who thinks that all riders are bros and that every single word in print is an honest attempt to grow the sport has a problem. Cheers
  • + 3
 No, sorry, you have completely and totally missed the pont. Regardless of whether the review has been written to grow the sport, educate the masses or generate clicks, the bottom line is that the staff here have done a review and the results of which help people out. I am not saying the staff here do it for us because they are philanthropic altruists, I am saying the reviews deserve not to be shot down out of hand so flippantly; they help people who want to make their way through the mire of frames, parts, components, wheel sizes blah blah blah. If anyone here is so cynical as to believe that RC and the boys have no interest in the products they review, only the clicks, it is a sad state of affairs. So regardless of whether you think i am being naive as you put it or not, show a little more respect people. No one ever got hurt by a little politeness and respect. It goes a long way as a certain vid on PB suggested a few weeks back. More reviews please as and when you get sent products please PB.
  • + 15
 "it closely resembles two popular competitors: the Maxxis High Roller..."

Yep, closely resembles the Empire State Building too.

"We didn't get to ride it in wet or loamy conditions, but based on where ___ does their testing, we'd assume it's amazing."

Kind of like how everything else is amazing because it gets tested in a few different places too.
  • + 11
 Reads like an old mountain bike action article, not very useful, critical or through.
  • + 6
 Dry weather tests is all we need during autumn, winter and spring!
  • + 3
 Yeah, how does this resemble a High Roller? Looks nothing like one..
  • + 6
 In dry conditions you can ride a lot of tire types and be happy with them. The true proving grounds are where trails gets every kind of condition, and thus, test the tire in each specific terrain type it would encounter. That is a complete test.

Testing a tire with large, square edged knobs in dry/intermediate conditions and coming up with positive reviews is not surprising. Just by looking at that tire design you know where it will excel.

I designed the High Roller II. I'm not sure where the comparisons are drawn. Two very different designs and two very different intended purposes. That Hutch is clearly a dry/intermediate tire, the HR2 is a soft conditions with leanings towards intermediate conditions tire.

If you need a tester PB, I can offer my services.
  • + 1
 Wow...RC needs to have his prescription checked...for his glasses or meds, or both if he thinks these resemble High Rollers, or Nevegals. I have all 3 in my garage, and I haven't had any trouble telling them apart. The assumptions made are precisely why I refer to UK Mags for tire tests - where I ride is nothing like the terrain in this, or any MBA test.
  • + 1
 @Drsanchez I see it more as a softer conditions tire: smaller knobs to penetrate into softer soil. I know in my dry conditions it would slide all over the place, not enough surface area or edges.
  • + 19
 Those knobs look promising!
  • + 21
 There's a line you don't hear everyday.
  • + 9
 Just returned from a trip to Kernville CA, 30 mile ride 9000ft of descent and 2000ft of ascent, un-forgetable high speed loose turns / drifting catching a glimpse of a few exposed edges Wink the Hutchinson Toro is an excellent choice.
  • + 1
 I'm sure it's a good tire, but I will never ride Hutchinson again. Had a 26" toro literally come apart on me. I was riding a dh trail and manualed over small dirt mound and the tread and part of the tire carcass separated. After about $4g out of pocket and 3 surgeries on my knee from the crash caused by the tire failing, I can finally walk with a cane. Maybe it was just a single bad tire and I just happened to get it. It happens; but it shouldn't. And before I forget to mention, the tire had less than 10 miles of riding on it. Most of which was the ride to and from work on pavement that day.
  • + 1
 MBR.UK mag did a review of the Toro, with a bunch of other 650b tires and they said the exact opposite - that the Toro was much better as a rear tire, with a HR2 or Mavic Charge upfront. Tire reviews are always going to be the most subjectively tested mountain bike component, as there are soooo many variables that impact whether that ties will be good or bad for that particular tester.
  • + 1
 never been a fan of tires that have a rotation direction for the front wheel and a reverse direction for the rear... never made that much sense to me. If a tire is designed to offer great grip/breaking in one rotation direction, why/how would that work well when simply reversed and put up front?
  • + 1
 It's pretty simple - one way they roll faster (back tire), other way they provide more grip and stopping power (front tire).
  • + 1
 but then the faster rolling rear direction will have shitty breaking since those knobs will be faced the wrong way to provide proper breaking when put on as a "rear". It will for sure affect the front tire or rear tire in a negative way.
  • + 1
 Just run them both in the direction you feel matches your use of the tire. Personally, I'd run them both the same direction. I'd trade climbing traction for braking traction on the rear, typically this makes little difference in climbing traction anyways.
  • + 4
 Rear braking is always shitty compared to front braking.
  • + 1
 I run a 2.35 nevegal and 2.1 ignitor on the back of my hardtail and that thing asolutely rips up and down with a 7inch rotor up front i have no braking problems and i can put the back end anywhere...
  • + 1
 If a tire has definite intended direction (High Roller or DHF) and you run that tire in the reverse rotational direction, then it will ride like shit. If a tire is totally good in either rotational direction, what is the point of saying switch the direction around? Just say it works for both front and rear with the same rotational direction.

@rclugnut, I'm not saying don't run a different tire front and rear. Just that simply rotating the direction doesn't make for a good rear and a good front- the breaking contacts and rolling surfaces will run counter to one another.
  • + 5
 I have a 26 inch model, and I can say: this tyre is really nice!
  • + 4
 They make tires for mavic .
  • + 2
 Being from Southern California, RC's review is right on. I love my 27.5 Toros. Push them hard and you will be rewarded.
  • + 1
 I really cant see a high roller there or a Navegal. Much more like hans dampf and first ride to
  • + 1
 I see the nevegal on the side lugs but looks much more like a beefed up and squared off ignitor to me... but yes more so like the hans damf all around...
  • + 2
 Sorta looks like a Hans Dampf as well!
  • + 6
 You sir, are correct. But many tyres these days look like others. Now it comes down to the compound and casing.... the engineering part of the tyre. The volume is important too. How easy does the side wall cut up if run tubeless etc. Pinkbike reviewers should have standard criteria to answer, making reviews more comparable.
  • + 1
 Yep, Def a Schwalbe HD rip off, can't see the HR or Nevegal in the design at all??
  • + 0
 Does not look like it. Too square.
  • + 1
 Not it's not, knobs are still intact after a few miles.
  • + 2
 Stop skidding on a cheese grater boyo
  • + 1
 My snow tires were 69.99 installed and they will last 85,000kms.
  • + 1
 Looks like schwalbe first ride
  • + 2
 hans damf
  • + 1
 looks like my bulldog tire i got 5 years ago, thing is a beast
  • + 1
 I was thinking the same thing. I had the 2.35 models and they were big, light, and rolled really well. Not to mention how well they cornered, even when you pushed them really hard. Wet stuff was never ans issue, be it mud, roots or even snow. The only difference between the Bulldog and the Toro (to my eyes) are the rotated center knobs, which "should" help them to roll even faster.
  • + 1
 85$ for a tire ?! Was it so expensive in 26" ?
  • + 1
 I paid $25 a piece for Baracudas. And they were ust. Look around, there are good deals to be found.
  • + 1
 Ok thanks, I meant 27.5 increases prices !
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.045976
Mobile Version of Website