Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: McFly 29x2.8

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    48

    McFly 29x2.8

    Got mine today. Tough version.

    Mounted on aeffect r 30 mm rim. Tubeless setup was good after messaging bead a bit. Great seal, no air loss. Still threw in 2 oz of stans.

    Size is a bit disappointing. I measured b2b 168 to 170 mm. At 19 psi it measures 64 mm at casing and 68 mm at tread. I rolled it out and it only measures 29.54 inches in diameter. I know tire is designed around 35-40 mm rim, but still disappointed, maybe it will stretch a bit. My bomboloni measures 75 mm on same rim and functions great so my experience has been fine with 30 mm rim and bomboloni was much closer to rated size(2.95)...

    Took out immediately on quick 8 mile ride with decent 1k foot descent. It's a good enough tire, corners better than bomboloni which is why I bought it and gives my yari fork more crown clearance. It might even fit in the rear, it's only 1 mm taller than my goma.

    All in all I would not had bought it if I knew what I know now. I am going to keep dropping psi to test it out, but suspect I will eventually go back to bomboloni or try a dirt wizard (need shorter tires for yari)....I hope th mcfly fits in the rear, will be close.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,960
    Got any photos?

    Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    15
    I got mine mounted up on front as well. went easily on my WTB I35 rim. Mine measure around 69 mm tread. Sure will grow some. I ran mine at 12 PSI, 150lbs, no loss of pressure after rooty hot lap trail. I loved the grip of the tire, ran it hard into some lose corners and hand no problem with bite. Coming from my chronicle 3.O, steering was a lot more responsive and tire still plenty compliant. Think this 29 x 2.8 could be the sweet spot for 29 plus.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    649
    Forgive me if this has been discussed, but where are you guys purchasing this tire?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    48
    Not to savvy. Have pics, but from my iPhone using safari, no option to add to post.

  6. #6
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,208
    2.67" at the tread, on a 30mm rim, for a brand new tire before it's had a chance to stretch, doesn't seem all that "off" to me. It may not ever reach a full 2.8" on a rim that narrow. Check it again after a couple weeks and some riding. Otherwise, it sounds like the McFly is delivering what you wanted?
    Last edited by Smithhammer; 1 Week Ago at 08:38 AM.
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert


  7. #7
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,263
    Either of you guys happen to weight your tire before mounting?

    I got impatient waiting and picked up a Bomboloni, which I'm liking so far. However top clearance is a tad tight on my Loop TR, so McFly just might be the better match for my application (have a 60 TPI DW for winter conditions).

    The numbers i had previously seen on the Bomboloni were 172mm bead to bead, so that isn't a whole lot of difference in volume.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Smithhammer View Post
    2.67" at the tread, on a 30mm rim, for a brand new tire before it's had a chance to stretch, doesn't seem all that "off" to me. It may not ever reach a full 2.8" on a rim that narrow. Check it again after a couple weeks and some riding. Otherwise, it sounds like the McFly is delivering what you wanted?
    Yes, I like the McFly tread pattern better than the bomboloni and the tire was more nimble and on rail feeling, but the volume is much much smaller and not sure it is worth the trade off. The McFly got bounced around by rocks, were the bomboloni rolls over. That was initial impression at least. I hope with some more use I like the McFly more...Again, the bomboloni performs great on a 30mm rim at 16 psi (I am 220#) and measures out to 2.9"....

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    Either of you guys happen to weight your tire before mounting?

    I got impatient waiting and picked up a Bomboloni, which I'm liking so far. However top clearance is a tad tight on my Loop TR, so McFly just might be the better match for my application (have a 60 TPI DW for winter conditions).

    The numbers i had previously seen on the Bomboloni were 172mm bead to bead, so that isn't a whole lot of difference in volume.
    I don't own a scale, so no idea on weight. The bomboloni has way way more volume than the McFly. When I crudely measured the b2b on the bomboloni I was measuring in the 180's, but not trying to be precise (ie no interest in arguing about how I measured it, did it just to compare last night)...

    I also ran the bomboloni on a loop tr. I thought it had fine spacing. Better than my Yari. Clearance on yari at crown is 2.5 mm. Now I have at least 6-7 mm. The bomboloni was about 30". I did not do a roll out of it though. I should had before dismounting.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    48
    McFly 29x2.8-img_4824.jpgMcFly 29x2.8-img_4827.jpgMcFly 29x2.8-img_4833.jpg

    The tire comparison is with well used Goma 2.4.

    Diameter of Goma on 22 mm rim is 29.38
    Diameter of McFly on 30 mm rim is 29.54

  11. #11
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by telejefe View Post
    I don't own a scale, so no idea on weight. The bomboloni has way way more volume than the McFly. When I crudely measured the b2b on the bomboloni I was measuring in the 180's, but not trying to be precise (ie no interest in arguing about how I measured it, did it just to compare last night)...

    I also ran the bomboloni on a loop tr. I thought it had fine spacing. Better than my Yari. Clearance on yari at crown is 2.5 mm. Now I have at least 6-7 mm. The bomboloni was about 30". I did not do a roll out of it though. I should had before dismounting.
    Gotcha, I was going off a previous thread where they ad b2b numbers of all 29+ tires. I didn't take the time to measure mine. I have great side clearance with the i35/Bombo combo in the Loop TR but exactly 3mm clearance to the crown. I'm getting right at 3" on Bombo width with calipers at 15psi too.
    Last edited by nitrousjunky; 5 Days Ago at 12:09 PM.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  12. #12
    jct
    jct is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    882
    sell me your mcfly's if you're not satisfied! i want to mount them on some 39mm rims for my SS.
    i will not yield to DH traffic.

    ISO one entry for Grinduro 2017!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by telejefe View Post
    The McFly got bounced around by rocks, were the bomboloni rolls over. That was initial impression at least. I hope with some more use I like the McFly more...Again, the bomboloni performs great on a 30mm rim at 16 psi (I am 220#) and measures out to 2.9"....
    Hopefully you just need to get your pressure dialed in. Good luck! Mine was pretty good at first PSI try, probably can drop another 1/2 psi more.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    174
    30mm is really narrow for a 2.8" tire. I'm not surprised you're barely getting 2.7" out of it.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by xblitzkriegx View Post
    30mm is really narrow for a 2.8" tire. I'm not surprised you're barely getting 2.7" out of it.
    I don't disagree and was expecting comments like this. But my bomboloni runs 2.95 on same rim @16 psi for heavy guy. In my opinion 30 mm can work great with bigger tires. I am sure it will be bigger on others, but you can see that on 35 is only 1 mm wider (but prob better volume)....
    I am liking it more and may be a great rear tire for me...oh, just for comparison, my goma is 64 mm at casing on 30 mm and so is the mcfly...so, only point is that it's on the smaller side of the spectrum of 2.8, def not on bigger size. I also suspect some new 2.6s could be as large as this tire....

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by xblitzkriegx View Post
    30mm is really narrow for a 2.8" tire. I'm not surprised you're barely getting 2.7" out of it.
    On the contrary, call up Stans. They will tell you a Flow MK3 is perfect for a 2.8 and even a 3.0" tire. It's a 29mm internal rim. They advertise them differently, because that's what the market wants to see. One of their reps said Schwalbe believes 38mm is about the max for a 3.0", past that you sacrifice performance. I found this interesting considering they also make the Sentry (32mm), Baron (35mm) and Major (38mm) rims.

    With this info, I'd rather have lighter rim/wheel weight and a proven awesome rim with the FLOW MK3 on a 2.8" or smaller tire.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ARandomBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    On the contrary, call up Stans. They will tell you a Flow MK3 is perfect for a 2.8 and even a 3.0" tire. It's a 29mm internal rim. They advertise them differently, because that's what the market wants to see. One of their reps said Schwalbe believes 38mm is about the max for a 3.0", past that you sacrifice performance. I found this interesting considering they also make the Sentry (32mm), Baron (35mm) and Major (38mm) rims.

    With this info, I'd rather have lighter rim/wheel weight and a proven awesome rim with the FLOW MK3 on a 2.8" or smaller tire.
    I like Stan's rims but TBH, I think they (and possibly every other rim maker) doesn't know sh!t about plus sized rim/tire width ratios. They say 38mm or less for a 3.0 tire...WTH do they expect you do do with the 52mm Hugo, then? last I checked there were no 29x4.5 tires.

    On the extreme flip side, Jones Bikes, and and a couple other small brands are strongly advocating 2.4's on 40mm rims.
    Edit to add: I've run 29x3.0s extensively on i30 rims, and equally as much time (like months of riding) on i43's. I very much prefer the wider rim. Other's lean the other way. I wouldn't go wider though. I think Stan's went too far with the Hugo.
    I'm not sure if there is truly a "best practice", or if the industry/riders just haven't figured out what it is.

    Back on topic, I've been waiting for this tire to come out. I'm really digging the option of 2.8's especially if there's a proportional weight decrease.
    I'm interested to hear what the early reports say for us Western sandy desert folk. A weight report would be super rad too.
    ―\_(ツ)_/― Yeah, why not?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ARandomBiker View Post
    I'm not sure if there is truly a "best practice", or if the industry/riders just haven't figured out what it is.
    I think this is exactly it. Also each rim and tire combo vary greatly how they match up, not just plus tires. Each tire manufacture probably designs there tire how they think should match up to rim size. If you look at the Mcfly, its recommended rim width is 35-45.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    344
    Now I finally have another option than Nobby Nic 2.6 for my 29r that hungers for max volume but maxes out clearance at 2.8inches.

    Anyone have any input? Trying to decide between these two tire choices for my i29 rim, for which 2.8 is the top end of suggested tire width so they would for sure not measure a full 2.8 even after stretch.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fewg8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    101
    Anyone know the diameter of these as compared to a fat b nimble?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    9
    I'd love to hear any opinions on how this might do as a rear tire with a Chronicle up front.

    I have a Salsa Fargo that will fit a 2.8" in the rear, but any bigger would give me chain rub in the lowest gear. I could convert the rear to boost spacing, but all the parts would cost me several hundred dollars. Not really worth it to gain .2". I've got a trax fatty on back now which is fine, but it's not the most durable tire.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    107
    Just got mine mounted up. I think these are going to be a winner.

    The 29x2.8 tough version on WTB Scrapers at 15psi.

    Weights were 972gr and 973gr.

    Knob to knob 2.71" Casing 2.69"

    Easier than the FBNs to setup tubeless.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Rangie View Post
    Just got mine mounted up. I think these are going to be a winner.

    The 29x2.8 tough version on WTB Scrapers at 15psi.

    Weights were 972gr and 973gr.

    Knob to knob 2.71" Casing 2.69"

    Easier than the FBNs to setup tubeless.
    Those weights are great news. The Terrene website shows them coming in at a little more than an EXO Chronicle. At around 975g though, that about 75g less than a Chronicle.

  24. #24
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Rangie View Post
    The 29x2.8 tough version on WTB Scrapers at 15psi.

    Weights were 972gr and 973gr.
    I do like those weights!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  25. #25
    Student of the Bike
    Reputation: CBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    575
    How light is an FBN then?

    I know that Rangie's weights are for the 'tough' version, but my Chupas weight a bit less than that at 3.0". I guess I was hoping for even lighter weights...

    My Chupas seem to work well even for the sharp limestone rocks we've got here in my neck of the woods. So I'm after a lighter weight (but not too fragile)tire that I could run in the mtns for my trips were long steady steep climbs are more de' rigueur.

    Thanks
    CJB

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,456
    Quote Originally Posted by CBaron View Post
    How light is an FBN then?

    I know that Rangie's weights are for the 'tough' version, but my Chupas weight a bit less than that at 3.0". I guess I was hoping for even lighter weights...

    My Chupas seem to work well even for the sharp limestone rocks we've got here in my neck of the woods. So I'm after a lighter weight (but not too fragile)tire that I could run in the mtns for my trips were long steady steep climbs are more de' rigueur.

    Thanks
    CJB
    If you don't want fragile, stay away from the FBN!

  27. #27
    Student of the Bike
    Reputation: CBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    If you don't want fragile, stay away from the FBN!
    Yeah, so I've heard. IMHO, its hard to escape physics. So if my Chupas weight 910 and the FBN's weigh XXX, then I'm hoping to target something in the middle. I'd love to find a low-mid 800 gram tire that is 2.8'ish and could be run on my i40 rims.

    I'm quietly holding out for a 2.8-3.0 Maxxis Ikon. I know this is a fantasy tire from my own imagination, but I'd like to have a 2.8 Chupa (29+) too!

    If anyone knows of a tire that fits this description, then feel free to post up. Sorry for the thread jack.

    Later,
    CJB

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,456
    Quote Originally Posted by CBaron View Post
    Yeah, so I've heard. IMHO, its hard to escape physics. So if my Chupas weight 910 and the FBN's weigh XXX, then I'm hoping to target something in the middle. I'd love to find a low-mid 800 gram tire that is 2.8'ish and could be run on my i40 rims.

    I'm quietly holding out for a 2.8-3.0 Maxxis Ikon. I know this is a fantasy tire from my own imagination, but I'd like to have a 2.8 Chupa (29+) too!

    If anyone knows of a tire that fits this description, then feel free to post up. Sorry for the thread jack.

    Later,
    CJB
    I believe I read that a 29x2.8 Maxxis Ikon is on the horizon.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    If you don't want fragile, stay away from the FBN!
    Fragile is one problem cornering traction is the other. Push too hard in anything remotely loose any find yourself in the dirt.

    Only one ride on the McFly but cornering grip is tons better.

  30. #30
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny View Post
    I believe I read that a 29x2.8 Maxxis Ikon is on the horizon.
    Oh please, make it a Rekon instead!
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert


  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorshanks View Post
    I'd love to hear any opinions on how this might do as a rear tire with a Chronicle up front.
    The McFy is more gripper then the Chronicle. Would not think that combo would work good. Now flop your scenario, another story. Just how much gripper, lets say this. I'm running the McFly up front (smaller width tire) with a Chronicle 27.5 3.O in the rear and have no fear of washout! Really digging the McFly after a few rides!

  32. #32
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,263
    telejefe- How does the McFly compare to the Bombo as far as grip goes?
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    telejefe- How does the McFly compare to the Bombo as far as grip goes?
    Since I got the mcfly my trails have been moist from rain so I really couldn't tell much of a difference. Splitting hairs would say mcfly cornered a little better. However, I have the bomboloni back on front and generally like it better. The only clear winner for the mcfly over the bomboloni is the additional clearance at the fork arch. I only have 2 mm with bombo and 6 mm with mcfly....I thought the mcfly would be lighter than bombo but looks like it is the same from other measurements...

    Th mcfly is a decent rear tire and fits at the moment, but expect will will grow in height and be too big soon. Interestingly, not much benefit of the plus in the rear on my full susp. I prefer the goma, just wish the goma wasn't so heavy....might try a nobby nic 2.6 when the Addix become available, or other 2.6s....

    If traction is your driver consider waiting for the terravail kennebec. Terravail sent me initial specs and that tire will be bigger than mcfly and aggressive jobs...I believe they spec there tire on the casing width, not the tread width...I still wish the mcfly casing was a touch more voluminous.

    I am going to mount up the mcfly on Duroc 40's next week, and hope they will support and widen the mcfly to the 2.8 advertisement....

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fewg8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    101
    Have you measured overall height and/or circumference?
    Trek Farley 6
    Salsa Bucksaw X01
    GT Grade Alloy X

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by fewg8 View Post
    Have you measured overall height and/or circumference?
    See post 11. 92.75" circumference, so about 29.55 diameter.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fewg8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by telejefe View Post
    See post 11. 92.75" circumference, so about 29.55 diameter.
    Thank you. The lack of sleep with a newborn must be killing my brain cells. Like this tire but have only 29.75 in the back of the Bucksaw. May have to wait for the teravails
    Trek Farley 6
    Salsa Bucksaw X01
    GT Grade Alloy X

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    15
    Was able to take Mcfly out on a 20 mile ride today, really pushed the front hard. Mixed between some moist parts of trail, loose rocky sections, crazy NC roots, some dry sandy areas in really fast flowy section, to hitting multiple small jumps in sequence as well. The tire performed flawless, I could not ask for anymore grip. I guess if you ride in mud a lot, then you may need meatier. Tire is very predictable and was just on rails! I had a few hard hits as well, and no burping at all at 12psi.

    My finally verdict is Mcfly flies! Unless durability becomes an issue will be keeping this on for quite a while.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by fewg8 View Post
    Thank you. The lack of sleep with a newborn must be killing my brain cells. Like this tire but have only 29.75 in the back of the Bucksaw. May have to wait for the teravails
    If you can fit a Dunderbeist you can fit a McFly.

    With some time to stretch and few rides the casing now measures 2.75".

    Running at 14/12psi.

  39. #39
    Jammin' Econo
    Reputation: Smithhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,208
    Initial impressions and measurementals:

    https://fat-bike.com/2017/08/product...-2-8-29-tires/

    Lots more to come....
    “I dream of a day when my children will live in a world without the shackles of cause and effect.” - S. Colbert


Similar Threads

  1. Ardent 29x2.25 lust vs Ikon 3c tr 29x2.35
    By t-ruh in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2014, 08:11 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-04-2013, 08:51 AM
  3. 29x2.1 or 29x2.3??
    By maximumsport in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-30-2013, 11:15 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-07-2012, 10:41 AM
  5. Geax Saguaro 29x2.2 vs Mountain King 29x2.4 ?
    By Clones123 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-22-2011, 09:30 PM

Members who have read this thread: 202

Posting Permissions

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