BH Original/BH 2.0
Close
    
    
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Senior Member trailscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yarnell, AZ
    Posts
    602
    I'd like to know if the BH 2.0 looks to have about the same cross sectional profile as the BH Original. All the pictures I've seen show the BH 2.0 as being more flat across the treads but it may just be that a 12" wide is shown for the BH 2.0 and an 9" wide for the BH O.



    Also, is there any difference in the stiffness of these two tires?



    If anybody knows the answer to these questions it'd be a big help in deciding which to get. I have the Duro mounted and am not pleased at all with the traction. It is way too stiff even with 0.5 PSI.
    Ya gotta finish the loop, it's your only way out!

    Hidden Content

  2. #2
    Senior Member lizrdbrth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Desert, SoCal
    Posts
    7,369
    The Bighorn2 is a lightweight answer to the original Bighorn.



    The ATV guys figured out pretty quick that all that weight was eating horsepower (times 4, in their case). The Bighorn2 addressed this and the original Bighorn remained in production to satisfy the needs of hunters, heavier 4x4s, etc.



    I have ran both. both kicked butt when aired down. All of them will tend to climb themselves in corners due their less rounded profile.



    Any chance that is what you're interpreting as stiffness? I currently run a Terracross and they all do it. Of the three that I have used I prefer the BH2.



    The other possibility is that the stiff stock shock is reacting to the weight of the tire and spanking you in the butt. Are you running a stock shock and swingarm?



    I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

    Powdercoated '87 frame, extended swingarm, YZ fork legs, ATV tire, 14/55, XT350 tank, spliced quick-release seat, disc brake conversion, beeg headlight, beeger rack, Lizrdcooler, Lizrdventz and bunch of other stuff all covered in invisible ink.

    Hidden Content

    Hidden Content

  3. #3
    Senior Member trailscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yarnell, AZ
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by lizrdbrth View Post
    The Bighorn2 is a lightweight answer to the original Bighorn.



    The ATV guys figured out pretty quick that all that weight was eating horsepower (times 4, in their case). The Bighorn2 addressed this and the original Bighorn remained in production to satisfy the needs of hunters, heavier 4x4s, etc.



    I have ran both. both kicked butt when aired down. All of them will tend to climb themselves in corners due their less rounded profile.



    Any chance that is what you're interpreting as stiffness? I currently run a Terracross and they all do it. Of the three that I have used I prefer the BH2.



    The other possibility is that the stiff stock shock is reacting to the weight of the tire and spanking you in the butt. Are you running a stock shock and swingarm?


    Thanks. I did get from Maxxis tech that weight reduction for racing was the purpose for the 2.0 but I didn't get much out of them on shape or stiffness.



    My perception of stiffness comes from running BH Originals on a Rokon at 3.5 PSI that are 2/3 flat at 0.5 PSI where the Duro is standing proud and tall at 0.5 PSI. And there are lots of rocks, small and large, in Arizona where I ride. The Duro tends to just set and spin on large flat rocks, even at 0.5 PSI, where the Rokon would putt right over. Plus, I have ridden a regular dirt bike with trials tires on the rear for years and the Duro will spin where it will not. The Duro is brand new and I'm displeased enough to toss it for another.



    No problem with getting kicked in the butt with the stock suspension. If I want to go faster I ride the KLX. I have a 70T rear sprocket on the TW so where I go with it I don't really need better suspension.



    The big thing I am concerned with before I order is that the 2.0 is as rounded as the BHO. My perception is that the squarish design of the Duro leaves the sidewall straighter which adds to the stiffness.



    I would expect the skinnier lugs on the 2.0 to allow more flex than the BHO if everything else is equal. Since you like it best, it sounds like it probably does flex more. Conforming to what is under the tire is the key to traction. And from what I've read here, it sounds like the 2.0 will not require swing arm lengthening.



    Thanks for the reply. I think that's enough to spring for the BH 2.0



    Harold



    PS: BTW, the TW had a "Golden Boy" DS tire on the front when I bought it. I just mounted a MT43 on the front and it's night and day. The front actually goes where I point it now and stays there.
    Ya gotta finish the loop, it's your only way out!

    Hidden Content

  4. Remove Advertisements
    TW200Forum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member trailscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yarnell, AZ
    Posts
    602
    Here's some of the Arizona rocks I'm talking about.



    Ya gotta finish the loop, it's your only way out!

    Hidden Content

  6. #5
    Senior Member trailscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yarnell, AZ
    Posts
    602
    Got the BH 2.0 mounted. I wound up needing to remove some rubber from the bead as with the Duro. Surprisingly, I had as much or more clearance at the swingarm as with the Duro.



    I'm running 3.5 PSI and like the tire. It does have better traction than the Duro but not all that much. Not sure if I would have spent the money for the added amount of traction it does provide, since I already had the Duro mounted. But when buying, I'd choose it over the Duro.



    The Duro does have one distinct and important advantage. I was running 0.5 PSI and it stood up fine. The Duro would be no problem riding flat. The BH 2.0 would be a bit of a problem.



    I rode both at 40 MPH on the pavement doing little figure S's and they seemed to handle just fine at those pressures.
    Ya gotta finish the loop, it's your only way out!

    Hidden Content

Sponosred Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Think I found a use for my original gas tank!..
    By bookm in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-08-2012, 10:01 AM
  2. 1998 TW for Sale, Excellent 256 original miles
    By eddy in forum TW200 Classifieds
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-09-2012, 01:59 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-04-2011, 01:38 AM
  4. FS: 1995 TW200 200 original miles. GA
    By tyco1983 in forum TW200 Classifieds
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-08-2010, 04:48 PM