Onza Releases Updated Canis XC Tire

Jan 17, 2023
by Matt Beer  
photo


The Swiss tire brand, Onza, might be best remembered for the white rubber and round knobs found on their Porcupine tire from the late 80s. Although the Porcupine model still exists, the most recent tire to see an update in Onza’s lineup is the Canis. The cross-country and marathon tire gains volume and a new tread pattern with the intent of increasing traction while maintaining a low rolling resistance.

Onza Canis Details

• Sizes: 29 x 2.3"
• Larger volume
• Colors: black or skinwall
• 45/60a dual compound
• MSRP: $69.90 - 74.90 USD / €64.90 - 69.90 EUR
onza-tires.com/

photo
photo
The old 2.25" Canis on the left had a large gap in the tread blocks. The changes to the right include a revised tread pattern and increased width to 2.3".

photo

photo
Onza's XCC casing consists of a single layer 60TPI (threads per inch) construction and a folding kevlar bead with a strip of extra rubber to ease inflation.

In terms of the size, the Canis is only available in a 29” diameter and the jump from a 2.25” width to 2.3" isn’t a massive change. Onza’s XCC construction features a foldable kevlar bead and single-ply 60 TPI casing that overlaps in the center. There’s also an extra rubber coating at the bead, called “TLR”, to help seat the tire with a tubeless setup.

Even placement of the blocks on the tread should provide a consistent feel while transitioning to the shoulder knobs. Those along the edge of the tire see additional support from a dual compound rubber to maintain traction without folding. All of the center knobs are now ramped at the front to roll quickly, square at the back to endure hard braking, and uniform in shape.

Onza uses their “Medium” dual-rubber compound for the Canis, made up of a 60a durometer central tread with a softer 45a durometer throughout the side knobs. On the sidewall, Onza uses the number “60” to denote the compound, which doesn’t make the rubber formula straightforward to understand.

The Canis is available now - just not in a polarizing white rubber tread. There are two sidewall color options though; a traditional black, or a light colored, “skinwall” finish. There is a difference in weight and price between the two colors. The black sidewall weighs 800 grams and costs $69.90 USD / 64.90€, while the skinwall version is $74.90 USD / 69.90€ and weighs 780 grams.

photo


Author Info:
mattbeer avatar

Member since Mar 16, 2001
361 articles

96 Comments
  • 70 3
 "Improved traction while keeping rolling resistance low" is the tire equivalent of "increased travel but still climbs like a goat" when a bike with updated geometry gets released.
  • 23 1
 seems like the previous version was just a joke so there was much potential for updates
  • 13 1
 Sounds like a better compound? Two sets of slicks could have the same rolling resistance but one could grip better if it were softer.

I guess the marketing teams have to write something...
  • 13 1
 BUT HAVE YOU RIDDEN THE NEW STUMPY EVO?!?
Well said! Lol
  • 6 2
 I can see that, but on a tire it's less bull-shitty. Long-travel bike efficiency can be improved, but will -never- pedal like a 100mm ht. Whereas clever tread design and material selection (or lack of) truly make a difference. For example, a Race King and a Racing Ralph are similar weight, but the Ralph is VASTLY better. I'd argue that a Rekon Race out-performs many trail tires, like an Ardent that weights 40% more.
  • 2 0
 ......or longer and slacker
  • 29 0
 Damn, I can't keep my eyes off the through the headset cable routing! *just joking*
  • 20 1
 It does look pretty damn ugly on that bike (even more so than usual!).
  • 12 0
 @EckNZ: right? There is no reason for that much slack if it is running through the headset.
  • 3 0
 Even worse is the look of front brake hose arriving at the caliper. Something looks out of place there
  • 31 0
 @donpinpon29: It's one of ARC8s showbikes / testbikes, so the dropper cable is a bit longer to accomodate different riders. However we absolutely share your opinion on the headset cable routing!
  • 3 0
 @ReformedRoadie: I've see a lot of hastily assembled bikes for photos before where elements like cable length etc are overlooked. Funny given you are trying to portray the best image of the product possible.
  • 19 0
 It's like tucking your tee shirt in your underwear.
  • 5 0
 The dropper cable is horrendous
  • 13 0
 @neimbc: How else are you supposed to look formal in your underwear?
  • 6 0
 @kcy4130: Wear a bow tie, obviously. Don't ask where...
  • 1 0
 @ReformedRoadie: wdym dont xc riders do barspins and all that jazz?
  • 1 0
 @noapathy: Suits you Sir
  • 6 0
 @OnzaTires: so no through tire cable routing anytime soon?
  • 2 0
 @vtracer: Oh god no!
  • 19 0
 The Swiss move a piece of rubber 0.5cm and have created a pamphlet about it for us all to enjoy
  • 20 0
 It lost me at +800g
  • 9 0
 Lost me at any price greater than $60 for an MTB tire.
  • 11 4
 @nickfranko: I prefer my tires to be made without the use of child labor... So $60 USD might just be the cost of entry on that front.
  • 9 1
 @corposello: I'd love for you to show me all the evidence of MTB tires costing below $60 are using child labor. After all, assumptions and all
  • 9 1
 @corposello: you're probably paying $90 for tires made by kids.
  • 8 0
 Totally. 800g is a trail tire.
  • 2 7
flag sevensixtwo (Jan 17, 2023 at 14:52) (Below Threshold)
 Child labor?? I didn't realize Pinkbike got acquired by the Oxygen network. All the emotions are getting me choked up.
  • 15 2
 New XC tire, I'm so pumped right now!
  • 7 0
 It's like a proper real life miracle for sure
  • 12 1
 Biggest change is solid paws with more pronounced claws, for sure a better footprint than v1.
  • 10 1
 34mm stanchion, I still remember the days of 32mm stanchion was the thing on All Mountain (AM) trail bikes back in the day. Now it's called enduro.
  • 6 0
 slopestyle riders used to run 32 831
  • 8 1
 @14pslope: 32mm is still common for many of the Manitou Circus forks and until a decade ago or so, the Boxxer had the same diameter. I'm not one to actively search for pictures on bike failures, but they do come by every now and then. Head tube (area) failures, handlebar failures. The ones I don't recall seeing are stanchion failures. Not even the 32mm ones. I don't know what is driving the constant increase in stanchion diameter. Maybe the bigger front wheels require that (I'm running 26" wheels and indeed 32mm stanchions). Or the more advanced dampers just need more room and people need to run less pressure in the air spring (hence require a larger piston). Now maybe some people demand more torsional stiffness from their forks but I recall when the Boxxer stanchion diameter went up, some people were already worried that the increased stiffness would make it track worse. The other thing might be that my fork lowers have dual arches (front and rear, Magura forks) which makes the lowers torsionally stiffer hence require less from the stanchions. I think it is patented because I've only seen DVO utilize that with the stanchion guards of an USD fork, but not with the actual lowers. How long does a company have the exclusive right on a patent? The first fork I've seen with dual arches was the 2004 Magura Thor. So the patent must have been from 2003 or so (unless it was from WP/Rond, then it could have been even older). Either way, once it has expired I can imagine more suspension companies will pick it up and stanchion diameters won't keep increasing.
  • 5 0
 Fox 32 with 150 mm?
  • 3 0
 @pakleni: yes back in the days...
BMC TF01 from 2011 as an example
  • 3 0
 @Hamburgi: or 26" GT Force
  • 9 1
 Yeah, single crown forks with 32mm stanchions could easily have 150mm of travel. When Manitou came with the onepointfive steerer standard and claimed it was the way to make longer travel single crown forks, it upset a lot of people worried that it would make their current frames obsolete (requiring a larger diameter headtube). Little did they know... Either way, Marzocchi then released their Z150 fork with 150mm travel and also with 32mm stanchions. Actually my current fork (Magura TS8, 32mm stanchions) came with 150mm travel but I dropped it to 120mm as that's what my frame is designed for. But for dual crown forks, obviously it could easily be much more. Marzocchi Jr T was 170mm travel IIRC, the Boxxer was 200mm. The original RS Domain fork was 200mm travel too, didn't it also have 32mm stanchions?

Would make for a nice "burning questions" article. Why are we seeing larger diameter stanchions for forks even though their application doesn't quite change?
  • 7 0
 @vinay: combination of factors I’m sure.

In many cases, a larger diameter tube with a thinner wall will end up lighter than a smaller diameter/thicker wall combo at equal bending stiffness.

A larger stanchion will also better distribute forces across the bushings in the lowers, reducing the likelihood of stiction issues.

The biggest factor though is likely the slackening of head angles. The fork on a modern bike is now sitting more parallel with the ground than in years past, increasing the amount of bending the fork is seeing versus an otherwise equivalent steeper HTA bike, demanding greater strength in bending to achieve similar deflections versus past bikes.
  • 1 1
 @vinay: the bigger stanchion diameter increases stiffness and allows the tube to remain straighter while cycling through the bushings, therefore reducing friction especially at longer travel where the stanchions stick out more
  • 6 0
 I wonder if the weight creep in the bike industry has more to do with manufacturers wanting to minimize warranty claims or have less design constraints, or trying to appease heavier or stronger anal retentive riders who claim to be very sensitive to the slightest bit of "flex".

IMO, a frame with modern kinematics and geometry would still ride great with 15 year old parts...
  • 8 1
 @racerfacer: I think you’re onto something with the warranty thing. I have a hard time believing slow middle aged dads can sense flex enough to warrant that 36 or 38 on the front of their enduro rig they only ride XC on.
  • 7 1
 @vinay: there was a Fox 32 150mm with Fit damper, was a great fork

we are seeing larger diameter fork stanchions to sell you something new with slightly more stiffness
  • 2 0
 Thanks all for your responses.

@mtallman2, @babathehutt : Yeah I understand the larger diameter tubes will have better bending stiffness (hence as a pair of of tubes also help with torsional stiffness of the fork). Whether that's required is up for debate though. I recall reading an article in Dirt magazine back in the days where they were following the Syndicate team who were testing the (at the time) new Blackbox forks. Blackbox implies that it is a prototype that may or may not be brought to production though of course I'd argue that the investment in the molds for new lowers may be higher than the investment for the molds for a carbon front triangle (which people here typically see as a sign that something is close to production). Anyway, one of the concerns was that the forks would be too stiff and would track worse. If that's the concern of a couple of big and hard riding racers (and a rat) running 200mm travel forks, it would be a concern for shorter travel forks for less hard riding people too. As for friction on the bushings, yes I do get that the deformation of the tubes will cause some extra friction with the bushings. Yet at the same time, it strikes me how it seems like bushing distance is getting shorter. I'm no mechanic and haven't looked into every single fork out lhere, but on my forks (Magura TS8, for up to 150mm travel) the lowers extend below the axle to accommodate for the stanchions when the fork bottoms out. So when the fork is fully extended, there is a good bit of stanchion inside the lowers, so there is a fair distance between the bushings. The lower bushing being to where the stanchion goes with the fork extended. Except for DH forks and very long travel single crown forks like the RS Zeb, it appears that there is only room for stanchions above the axle. And on some Fox XC forks, they have the step cast lowers allowing for even less room for the stanchions. Which implies that when the fork is extended, there will be less stanchion inside the lowers, hence the lower bushing will be higher and the bushing distance will be less. Maybe not always in absolute sense (as many of these modern forks have longer lowers to accommodate for bigger front wheels) but definitely in relative sense. Which, when talking about leverage and bending, is what's relevant. Either way, when the reduced (relative) bushing distance does increase the load on the bushings, this in will increase friction and wear. So yeah, with the new forks they solve things one way by making the tubes stiffer yet make it worse by making the bushing distance shorter. If they really were unhappy about the smoothness of existing forks, they might have increased the stanchion diameter but would also have maintained the bushing distance in relation to the fork length. Not sure about the effect of the head tube angle. I'd say that unless you're doing a huck to flat, the hit (that causes the fork to compress) is the resultant of forces that come from below and from the front. I'm sometimes getting the impression that people judge the fork by the PB huck to flat videos. But these are mainly made to show how the rear suspension moves through the travel. If they really want to show how the fork performs on the trail, they'd better hit a square edge at moderate speed. So install the tire insert, inflate the tire to 3bar and hit a curb between 150 and 200mm tall. I wouldn't be surprised if the forks have an easier job on the slacker bikes than on the steeper ones. Either way, my fork has 32mm stanchions, my bike has a 63mm head tube angle. Works perfectly fine.

@Glory831Guy: Yeah sorry, I was actually referring to the generation of Boxxer forks before that one. Apparently that's over fifteen years ago now. Was still 200mm. And Sam Hill was definitely pushing them hard and Rampage hucks weren't small either back then.

TL;DR: Yeah, you'd say I'm caring too much judging by how long this comment became. I don't, actually. I just kept typing. I'll stop now.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: the nominal bushing overlap doesn’t take sag into consideration…
  • 1 0
 @babathehutt: By nominal bushing overlap, do you mean the bushing overlap divided by the axle to crown length? Then yeah that may be the term I should be using when talking about "relative bushing distance" when I mean to say the distance between bushings divided by fork length (between axle and crown-race). Whether sag should be taken into consideration probably depends on the kind of situation. One could argue that binding in case of a huck to flat should be looked at with the fork fully extended as that's what it's like when it receives the peak impact (unless the bottom out is harsher). But when riding rough terrain, we should indeed look at sagged length. Just not sure whether the bigger wheels make things any more favourable. For the same amount of suspension travel, the length between dust wiper and top of the crown says the same. But the distance between axle and dust wiper increases with the wheelsize and obviously doesn't reduce with sag. So in total, the fork will be longer through every stage of the travel. Keeping the distance between bushings the same or less than what the 26" forks have doesn't help with this, if I'm using the term correctly, nominal bushing overlap.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: i meant full extension rather than at sag
  • 1 0
 @vinay: I meant nominal as in the 150 mm fork is at 150 mm extension which is a scenario that basically never happens on the bike. The moment you sit on it you’re at sag. Hucking to flat is an interesting use case because you are loading the fork against its typical travel path from full extension, but I don’t think this is where the problem with fork binding is experienced (it probably binds but its not a problem). Rather I think when encountering rocks and bumps coming in a horizontal direction towards the bike, that load causes binding and that resists fork movement, degrading performance. Maybe the increased rollover of a bigger wheel can compensate for the binding of a longer fork on a 29er? also the fork crown is engineered to have a certain amount of flex as well, and that probably also helps.
  • 9 1
 800g for an XC tyre!!! tyres are just getting so heavy now.

The old ralphs used to be like 530g for 2.25, super soft, lasted ages, no issues with punctures. New ralphs are nearly 700 + as well.
  • 3 0
 @corposello: I went through Ralph's at a prodigious rate just a few years ago. They flatted just in the sight of a rock. All my friends were just giving my theirs so I had a few.

Once I started buying my own tires I stopped having that problem.
  • 2 0
 @JSTootell: has to be the type of riding you're doing, and probably your own weight and style. i've done cape epic and many other stage races on ralphs, never had a problem. most of my riding/racing at home is in sandy/loamy trails, you dont need 800g tyres for that. Tyre weight makes such a big difference for lightweight 60kg riders.
  • 1 0
 @xrob: Agree. Your area of riding, weight, and style will have an impact. I'm not heavy (I'm "over weight" at 69, normally race at 64) but I do race and ride in a rocky area (Southern California).
  • 12 4
 Maxxis rekon race?
  • 36 1
 Tire, black, rubbery!?
  • 21 0
 Would love to see an XC tire shootout - Ground Control vs Rekon vs Canis vs Racing Ralf etc. Would be tough to do since so many casing options but I'd read it...
  • 2 2
 @Lokirides: like that old video, I pick a tire combo and be a dick about it. If it's not Ardent Race front/Rekon Race rear I ain't riding it.
  • 1 0
 but with taller centre knobs
  • 1 0
 Yep, just with different center tread pattern, and different transition knobs, and different side knobs, and $20 cheaper. But you know, same thing.
  • 4 0
 Race Kings and X-Kings too!
  • 3 0
 We already know the answer here. Rekon Race for everyday fast riding on aggressive trails and KOM chasing, and Ralphs for race day. And Race Kings as practical jokes on the new guys.
  • 7 1
 Smoother anus for the assguy
  • 5 0
 Just get me a set of Porcupines and all my problems will be solved.
  • 1 0
 Just went to rhe Onza interweb portal. They have a new porcupine! It looks just like an IRC Missle, not like the og porc. This may be a good thing.
  • 1 0
 In white!
  • 1 0
 Even better would be Onza Octopus
  • 7 0
 @korev: Stay tuned for April 1st...
  • 2 0
 @OnzaTires: will there be 27.5" versions of the new canis (and upcoming svelt)? i love them on my trail hardtail.
  • 2 0
 @nullzwo: Unfoltunately not, XC and DC are 29" for us. The Porcupine and Ibex, which are our Trail/AM tires, are available in 27.5 and 29 in two different widths. Maybe that would be another great choice for you? This combo was recently crowned test winner in the German BIKE magazine. Smile
  • 1 0
 @OnzaTires: bummer Frown i have a playful trail / pumptrack hardtail which i run 27.5" wheels or mullet, with a porc' up front for grip and a svelt or canis in the back for speeds. but now i have to look for another tire after the season.
  • 4 0
 They're just gonna leaf it as Canis and not Canibus?

1/10
  • 7 0
 The opinions were spliff in two camps but in the end they decided they didn't want to stir the pot with a name like that.
  • 1 0
 The enduro version will be the cannabis. All who ride it will be eternally stoked, and will talk about schralping gnar etc...
  • 5 0
 I don't understand the reeference
  • 4 0
 @ceecee: To be blunt, don't know what you're smoking because weed seen right away @jackalope is talking about grass.
  • 1 0
 I really iked the Onza Aquilla, it was basically a DHF that cleared mud a better, had the super sticky version on my 650b bike, I moved to a 29er but they only did the hard compound in 29.
  • 2 0
 Ahhh yes, the 2nd gen Schwalbe Racing Ralph.... that was such a great tire,
  • 2 0
 Here's to the headset routing going by the way of the knock block. Hopefully in a year or two it disappears.
  • 2 0
 Onza - now that's a name that was so prominent back in the 90's to early 2000. Pretty decent prices for the tires.
  • 2 0
 just release a Classic Porcupine !
  • 2 0
 Gum walls make me ill. Brown has no place on a bike unless it’s mud.
  • 1 0
 Official tire of caninus.
  • 1 0
 5 bucks to drop 20 grams?! That has to be the best deal in bikes!
  • 1 0
 No DH casing 2.6? I'm out.
  • 1 0
 Weed don’t bother me Smile
  • 1 0
 Rhymes with...
  • 1 0
 Need a 2.4
  • 2 2
 Onza are the worst tires ever. Terrible rubber compounds
  • 1 0
 I killed the Porcupines in 90 days on AZ rocks and sand.
  • 1 3
 The old Canis was kind of crap, undersized, unpredictable, not as good as racing ralph, rapid rob, or any of the lighter maxxis offerings. This new version....looks the same.
  • 1 2
 Lost me at absurd pricing
  • 1 2
 Too many big center knobs. Will roll slow.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.052965
Mobile Version of Website