Review: Bontrager SE4 2.6" Tire
Bontrager's fat bike tires have cool names like 'Gnarwhal' and 'Barbagezi', but unfortunately the rest of their mountain bike tires don't get the mythical creature treatment. Instead, there are two letters and a number that designates the casing type and how aggressive the tread pattern is – it's like the Dewey Decimal System for tires.
Take the SE4 tires reviewed here. The SE initials signify that they have Bontrager's Core Strength Casing, which has extra reinforcement at the sidewalls and under the tread to prevent punctures. It's thicker, and a little heavier than Bontrager's more cross-country oriented XR casing. The number 4 in the SE4's name is out of 5, which places it on the more aggressive side of the spectrum, with a tread pattern designed for a wide range of conditions, from hardpack to loose, and wet to dry.
Take the SE4 tires reviewed here. The SE initials signify that they have Bontrager's Core Strength Casing, which has extra reinforcement at the sidewalls and under the tread to prevent punctures. It's thicker, and a little heavier than Bontrager's more cross-country oriented XR casing. The number 4 in the SE4's name is out of 5, which places it on the more aggressive side of the spectrum, with a tread pattern designed for a wide range of conditions, from hardpack to loose, and wet to dry.
Bontrager SE4 Tire Details
• 61a / 50a dual rubber compound
• Tubeless ready
• Core Strength casing reinforcement
• Sizes: 27.5 x 2.4, 2.6, 2.8"; 29 x 2.4, 2.6, 3.0"
• Weight: 1070 grams (29 x 2.6")
• MSRP: $84.99 USD
• www.bontrager.com
• 61a / 50a dual rubber compound
• Tubeless ready
• Core Strength casing reinforcement
• Sizes: 27.5 x 2.4, 2.6, 2.8"; 29 x 2.4, 2.6, 3.0"
• Weight: 1070 grams (29 x 2.6")
• MSRP: $84.99 USD
• www.bontrager.com
Plus-tires didn't quite live up to the hype that surrounded their introduction, but over the last year or so we've seen numerous 2.6” options hit the market, part of what seems like an attempt to find the Goldilocks width, one that provides plenty of traction and compliance without the vague handling and delicate sidewalls of the original Plus tires. There are 2.6” and 2.4” versions of the SE4 for both 27.5” and 29” wheels, along with a 29 x 3.0” option and a 27.5 x 2.8” option. MSRP and weights vary, but a 29 x 2.6” tire weighed in at 1070 grams and retails for $84.99 USD.
Look closely and you'll see that there's a tread wear indicator (TWI) to let you know when you've skidded your tires to oblivion.
The SE4 has a fairly round profile, but the rectangular and L-shaped side knobs keep it gripping in the corners.
Performance
The SE4 tires mounted tubeless up without any trouble on a rim with an internal measurement of 28mm. That number is a smidge narrower than the ideal range of 30-35mm for a tire this wide, but it didn't pose any issues out on the trail. As far as the actual tire width goes, the SE4 measured true to size – at 20 psi the casing measured 2.5” and the distance from side knob to side knob was 2.6”. It's good to see that Bontrager's calipers are properly calibrated – I've run into a few tires from other brands that say 2.6” on the hot patch, but measure barely 2.4” wide at a useable pressure. On the topic of pressure, I typically ran 20 psi in the front and 22 in the rear, and a pound or two less for wetter days when I wanted as much grip as possible.
On the trail, the SE4 was a very easy tire to get along with. It doesn't have the most aggressive tread pattern out there, but it offered up plenty of traction for the dry and dusty summer time riding here in the Pacific Northwest. It's no slouch in the wet either, as long as it's not too muddy – there aren't any super tall knobs to slide out suddenly on roots or rocks, which makes it easy to predict how it'll behave even when the trail is covered in a layer of slime.
The overall profile is more round than square, which creates a very predictable transition onto the side knobs when cornering, and those side knobs are well supported to avoid any unwanted squirming. It rolls smoothly, and feels noticeably quicker than a more aggressively treaded tire like a Schwalbe Magic Mary or Maxxis Minion. Of course, the tradeoff for that extra speed is that it doesn't dig into the ground quite as tenaciously as those two aforementioned tires, but it still does well on all but the steepest and sloppiest of trails.
The 2.6” width goes a long way toward smoothing out chattery sections of trail – the SE4 is an excellent choice for a hardtail or shorter travel bike where the extra cushioning provided by the higher volume casing is especially helpful. The one downside to the extra width is that the tires can feel a little 'floaty' in looser, conditions, especially if the trail is steep – in that type of situation they weren't able to dig in and bite quite as well as a narrower tire with taller knobs would.
When it comes to durability, I haven't had any punctures so far (knock on wood), and the tread wear is very even and more than reasonable considering the number of miles I have on them.
Pinkbike's Take
 | Bontrager's SE4 is a bit of a sleeper, one of those tires that doesn't attract much attention, but punches above its weight out on the trail. It's an all-rounder to its core, a tire that you can install and not have to think twice about no matter the terrain, that is, assuming your typical ride doesn't involve plunging down the steeps of Champery in the pouring rain. The 2.6” version offers extra compliance and traction that comes in handy on rougher sections sections of trail, but the 2.4” version is worth considering as well, especially as a rear tire. |
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
They are, however, a lot simpler with single compound, no tubeless construction, no need for folding, weight not being that important etc. If you pick an MTB tyre without all the bells and whistles it would be like $5-10.
Agreed 100%. Tires make a bigger difference in your bikes feel and performance than almost any other component. Probably a better place to put that money than anything else if you actually want to change how your bike performs.
Just swapped finally wore out the knobby nics that came on my bike (put the front knobby nic on the rear and wore it out first) and have replaced them with Maxxis DHF and Aggressor. It's given me way more confidence around corners in particular and I can't believe I waited to change honestly
www.endurorider.pl/cst-rock-hawk
Is it c*nt day in America?
This particular tire isn't made in 26" but others are. Are you going to complain that you can't use tractor tires on your car?
I've ridden my old XR3 and 4s to death and would love to replace them like for like.
If I could afford a car to not put tractor tyres on, then I'd have a big wheeled bike by now XD
www.cargods.com/2011/04/16/4x4-geo-metro
I also built up a hard tail Transition last year, all in 26".
I don't fret about wheelsize bullshit like people on here. I don't race world cup courses or ride as if I'm a bro at whistler. I do this for a past time and a hobby like 95% of people on here. I don't ride the nut swinging bangwagon of the pro's and I don't need the same wheel's as they do.
Truthfully, both my 26" and 27.5" were/are sick. I can get some good speed either way, roll through whatever comes up and enjoy my time.
We enjoy riding. Not everything has to be a race. I won't argue that people who race like bigger wheels. But bigger wheels don't mean more fun. We invested our thousands of dollars on 26" bikes and we are still having fun with them.
I can confirm...29" is more fun! ...With the exception of the bike park where, for me, an 8" bike is better suited to 27.5" (right now). And I do notice a slight difference between 27.5" and 26" - would take the every so slight reduced rolling resistance of the 27.5".
Kona process 153 is still on 26" even though it's a 650b frame and fork. 26" still not dead, not when you can still buy new frames, rims, tires.
Higher psi ride like sh1t cause of deflection just my opinion unless you ride park
Tire pressures are also terrain dependent - where I live there are more roots than rocks, and it's wet for a good portion of the year. That means I can get away with running lower pressures, compared to if I was somewhere super rocky and hardpacked.
At the end of the day, it's all about doing a little experimentation to figure out what works best for you and your riding style. We mention the pressures used in review articles as a point of reference, not a hard and fast rule.
Please report back what you find!
Agree completely with the narrow rim's needing even higher psi, I can't stand them anymore il never go back. 30mm to 35mm internal is the goldilocks zone of rim width for me but still can't go lower than 30psi on a rear.
I do ride some park but my comment was certainly for the rockier, often hard packed trails. This often comes with higher speeds and I can feel tires get squirmy with lower pressures. I am certainly using the pressure to save my wheels and prevent pinch flats. I have still ruined several Maxxis EXO tires with 28psi by pinch flatting on my home trails. I do totally agree that lower pressures feel nice, but my wallet cant afford new tires every few rides due to pinch flats.
For 27.5 x 2.6 on a 36mm internal width rim and a 230-235lbs rider needs about 26 F / 27-28 R.
Saying that it might be a smidge lower as not clear whether you tested 27.5 or 29?
So, XR4 on the front, DHR2 switched to the back. The DHR drift zone while leaning used to drive me crazy on the front, I love it on the back. Not the fastest combo, but as someone said, the best rear tire is a worn front.
There's no concrete rule when it comes to tires size / rim width - the numbers I mentioned are simply what I've had the best luck with.
Think of it this way. A wide rim will stretch the casings contact point where it sets on the rim, causing the tire to flatten its profile out.
A narrow rim will cause the profile to become taller, or perhaps balloon out (not good).
A car analogy would be low riders with the tires that are too small for the rims. It gets that cool low rider look, with the sidewalls turned in towards the main tread, really showing off the rims, but it really isn't how the tire was designed to be used.
Depending on how the tire is constructed (sidewall strength, carcass shape, etc) it will assume some shape at either extreme or, more likely, someplace in the middle. If the tire is designed to perform best at a certain profile, getting the right rim to achieve that profile is desirable.
Really, I think it would be interesting if tire manufactures started putting profile numbers on their tires. The theory isn't any different than a car tire, which has 3 dimensions rim, width, profile.
heres a fun one for you -- i haven't the slightest clue what the width of my rim is, and it didn't stop me from buying any old tire off the rack and riding just like everyone else.
If, and I quote you here, the rim you used was "...a smidge narrower than the ideal range of 30-35mm for a tire this wide, but it didn't pose any issues out on the trail", why would you not use one IN the ideal range?
The ideal range surely indicates a low threshold and a high threshold with 'perfect' being roughly somewhere in the middle, and/or this range accounts for different tyre profiles.
FWIW I ride a 2.6" on a 37mm rim (Factory recommended/fitted/supplied) and I can't imagine how different that 9mm makes to how the 2.6" would make!!
So you rim was below this lower threshold and so changes how the tyre behaves, meaning it was tested in not ideal conditions which seems an undesirable test basis, allowing a world of unknown unknowns. And whilst it didn't cause any problems, it wouldn't have behaved the same as on the ideal rim width.
I'm only banging on about it because in an ever confusing world of standards, consumers (maybe not ALL) use the suggested rim width to make purchasing decisions, and therefore will be pairing it with/buying it for a 30-35mm rim and getting different results than you.
It just seems like things should be tested in recommended conditions to replicate real world consumer use, but I bow to your superior knowledge, it just contradicts recommendations and makes getting things right a whole lot fuzzier. :-)
They roll in corners, they don't grip on anything loose, dusty or wet. They have the accuracy of a sledgehammer when riding anything remotely technical. The sidewalls are so thin that to actually get them to a pressure where you don't destroy your rims, they lose all the bonuses of being a plus sized tyre.
These tyres make zero sense unless you enjoy riding non-technical hardpack. In which case, they're awesome.
Granted it is also quite fast rolling, and it does smooth out the trail buzz thanks to it's large volume.
I switched to a minion DHF & DHR II in Double Down casings and the difference is night and day.
Either way, no bigger than a 2.5 maxxis for me thanks. Doesn't sound like much difference but these bonty tyres come up really big by comparison.
Maxxis Exo I find extremely feeble and bouncy, DD is basically the same feel but more protection and DH casing is in a league of it own to me. Super damped, super tough and works very well at a wide range of pressures. I thought the Spesh tyres fell between DD and DH for feel but maybe I got it completely wrong! Felt like they had low TPI like the DH casings to me.
Probably worth deleting and retesting...
New Addix compound is more durable than previous compound too. Good prices at Bike24.com if you're willing to wait for shipping from Germany. This type of tire is awesome on a hardtail 29er
Wouldn't mind that with there Mtb stuff
Are we just stating numbers from the review or do you have a point?
I gotta throw my vote for the most 'dangerous' tire being the fricken Maxxis Ardent.
Like riding on snot-covered ice. Landing on a rock-with both tires in line- the rear end came around. Luckily the Ardent is so bad that it never regained traction and high-sided me, as I would've gone off the side of very tall hill. It just totally let go and spun all the way 'round and low-sided me in a straight line.
Don't know and don't care what its fricken problem was/is. I know I'll simply never ride on one ever again
Genuinely confused. I'd say there's 12 of us who use MM up front and HD out back and have been constantly pleased with the awesome grip!?
I got Minions on my new bike and can't say the difference has been that huge.