Now I am starting to have second thoughts about my Bugs, not that I am unhappy with them (not that at all!) but there is just so much talk about them damn Claws. I think Andy took a shot at this before but I will ask again. Why is everyone choosing Claws over Bugs. I always thought that Claws were much more aggressive than Bugs. Bugs being a better tire for all round riding. However since I have zero experience with the Claws all I can go on is by looking at them they seem similar and the Claws seem to give a much better ride than say Vamps which I have no interest in due to their "purpose built use". I always thought Claws were more similar to Vamps and hence I went with the Bugs because I have had experience with the Vamps. I ask not only to ease my mind but we are probably gonna put a set of tires on our other 500 Cat and I am wondering if I should try the Claws. So what's the deal, why are Claws so popular they are scarcer than hen's teeth?

 

Thump:
Not sure what is up with the 'Claws lately, H.L. has been selling out of them, every truck they get in. I had originally planned on the Bugs, myself, though was steered otherwise. I always thought the 'Claws looked mean, tough and would be cool as hell on the 'Cat, but never really thought about them for my purposes, figured they were more a straight mud tire. Andy pretty much changed my mind for me, and was basically my deciding "kick in the butt" I guess you could say.

I had sent an email to H.L. several weeks ago, but hadn't heard back until this morning. It was interesting to see what Jeff had to say. I had talked to James, and ordered the 'Claws from him on Monday. Jeff sent an email to me this morning, concerning the weights of the tires, that I had asked about several weeks ago. Jeff gave me the tire weights, then asked if I was buying them for pure mud. He said he wouldn't recommend them for strait mud runs, but said they were an excellent all-around tire that would perform very well in all area's, and mud as well. I think what he was trying to get at, is that if I was buying a mud tire, I should have purchased the Outlaws. But, I don't want a pure mud tire, so they are not an option. From both Jeff and James opinions, they basically backed up everything Andy had already told me, so I'm assuming the 'Claws will be perfect for my needs.

It sounds like my 'Claws were shipped out yesterday, and I am expecting them by Monday or Tuesday next week, assuming a 3-5 day shipping period. I'll let you know what I think of them as soon as they arrive, and I get a few miles on them.

Mike

 

After owning my set of Tri-Claw magnums I have come to the conclusion that they are more of an all around tire than any other mud tire out there.

Are Vampires/outlaws better in the mud? Hell yea. But I put 2500 miles per year on my cat and only about 250-500 miles of that is muddy/soft terain so I want a nice riding tire.

When I got my claws I expected a little vibration, but I have yet to expereince any yet.

If you don't mind the slightly more lose in power compared to the Mud Bugs I would HIGHLY recomend the Claws over the Bugs.

 

Now you got me thinking. I was just about ready to put Bug's on my 400 Cat. I will be using my machine in the snow as well as the mud. I wonder if anyone has had the Bug's in the white stuff yet. I to would need an all around general purpose tire as most of my driving is on loose dirt. Any suggestions.

Cheers Jim

 

My thoughts on this:

with the Vamps in question, I never saw enough one sided opinions to make me believe that regular 27" Vamps were any better in mud than Claws are. 28" Vamps, sure, how could they not be with those massive lugs, but the 27" are really no taller. If they are, its just a cat hair.

That being said, its obvious that the Claws ride better. The claws have the deep lug with good bite, but they incorporate a better tread design for smoother riding. The Claws have the two lugs with the open space in the middle, which gives them no centerline. That is where the bumpy ride comes in. Even if they are a little better in the mud (and if so, the difference would be miniscule), the ride difference is enough to make the Claws the better buy.

Now with the Bugs, its a little different. They are lighter and have a better ride than the claws, but don't offer the massive lugs. They do have a very large lug compared to most other tires which gives them a great medium between say Blackwaters and Vamps. Again, they seem to fall into their own category with maybe the Mudrunners. Not the 1.25" lug category, but the one below it. Great traction, just not monster mud lug traction, while giving you a good ride on top of that. Unless you rode big time mud, I don't think you would notice any real drop off in traction between Claws and Bugs. I don't think you made a bad choice with the Bugs. I've never even ridden them so I'm really just speculating anyway. I have ridden Claws though so I do know about them.

The main reason I got Claws was because they were true to size and would give me better clearance than other aftermarket tires. That and the fact that they look real good and of course the traction. I knew they would ride a bit rougher than stock, but that wasn't a factor. I wanted something with great traction and it was between them and the Vamps. The Vamps ride like a 1983 Ford 1 ton cab & chassis with no weight at all on it, so I went with the Claws. If traction is too close to call, go to the next thing which is ride quality.


Don't second guess yourself with the Bugs buddy. There hasn't been anything bad said about them ever. They are a good tire. A lot of the crap said on the forums is just talking good about whatever that particular person has, so take your information from a variety of sources and then make your distinction.

 

I would not go with the bi/tri-claw series on the 400. I knew a guy with an AC 400 4x4 that rode with this combo. He had enought power to turn them and NEVER boged the bike, but he still dind't have the power he wanted. So, he sold his rear Tri-Claws and got 27x9x12 Bi-Claws all around to make up some power.

 

Thats one thing I never understood about the 400 AC. Its closer to a 350 than it is a 400. I think they should have just called it a 375. That would be a cool number and nobody has ever had anything like that before.

 

At some point in the near future I have to ride a 500 Cat to see just how much more grunt this bike has. My 400 which is stock except for a K&N filter will run up to low 50's without much of a strait stretch and will, when in low range in rocks and mud go pretty much anywhere. I seem to get it stuck quite a bit but I can't blame that on the torque as I have yet to have it so badly bogged that it would not churn up mud. The only place I notice the lack of horses is when running uphill on logging roads at high speeds. Has any one driven both machines to tell me their impression. When I got the bike I was looking at a 300 but for $600 Canadian I moved up to a 400. The cost to go to the 500 was another $800 beyond that. I have of late thought that the Auto would be nice for muddin though.

Cheers Jim

 

Thanks for the input guys, I feel comfident in my tire choice again. As usual Andy your input is spot on.