Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 175 of 175
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Notched View Post
    You can read how much a tire deflects on modern rims here.
    Is wider always better? - ENVE Composites

    I couldn't tell you the internal width of the rims I was running then. They were Sun Double Track somethings? Sun Ringle? That may've been the hub. I'll have to find a picture and check what they were. The issue with wide tires then wasn't the flex, or even the grip. It was weight.


    They don't use $US in Texas?
    No, I'm saying Texas is pretty flat compared to So. Cal.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    No, I'm saying Texas is pretty flat compared to So. Cal.
    I'll take your word for it. I've not been to either. I don't do any huge climbs. Maybe 600m tops. If I had a shorter travel bike I'd be inclined to climb more!

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Notched View Post
    I'll take your word for it. I've not been to either. I don't do any huge climbs. Maybe 600m tops. If I had a shorter travel bike I'd be inclined to climb more!
    Your profile says you're from Texas.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    811
    Had to pick somewhere.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,664
    ****, you're not the sharpest pencil in the classroom, are you?

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    ****, you're not the sharpest pencil in the classroom, are you?
    And yet I still manage to come across articulate.

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Notched View Post
    And yet I still manage to come across articulate.
    And delusional!

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    811
    Looking back I've had quite the variety of wide, and narrow rims.
    Alex DX 32's and DM 24's.
    Sun Ringle Doubletracks and Singletracks
    Mavic EN321
    Mavic F219
    OEM Specialized rims, 23mm and 24mm.
    So it looks like wide rims have come into fashion again. Who knew! Seems the only difference is the rim weight. DX32 about 780g vs LB 420g. Now that's progress.

  9. #109
    Fat-tired Roadie
    Reputation: AndrwSwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Notched View Post
    And yet I still manage to come across articulate.
    Neither of you comes across that well right now.
    "Don't buy upgrades; ride up grades." -Eddy Merckx

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,664
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrwSwitch View Post
    Neither of you comes across that well right now.
    And, what's your problem with me?

  11. #111
    1 by 1 pixel?
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,944

    here's a couple that might help

    Bead to Bead 26" Mtb Tire Measurement ( b2b / Tire Volume List )

    - 559 BSD

    Continental
    Trail King ( Germany ) 2.4"
    164mm used
    Rubber Queen 2.4 BCC (Trail King before it was re-labeled)
    164mm used
    Der Baron 2.5" BCC 2ply wire bead
    156mm used

    Maxxis
    Ardent 2.4" Exo Protection ( Taiwan )
    159mm used
    Ardent 2.4 Exo TR Dual 60-559
    157mm
    Griffin 3C MaxxGripp 2.4" 2ply wire bead
    156mm used
    Minion DHF 2.5" ( Taiwan )
    152mm used
    Minion DHF 2.35" Maxxpro 60a Exxon Exxpro ( Taiwan )
    141mm used
    Minion DHF 2.3 Exo TR Dual
    156mm
    Minion DHR2 2.4 Exo 3C
    154mm used
    Minion DHR2 2.4 Exo MaxxPro
    153mm used

    Michelin
    Wild Grip'r 2.35 Advanced Reinforced Gum-X
    157mm

    Onza
    Greina 2.4 FRC 55a
    149.5mm used

    Schwalbe
    Hans Dumpf 2.35" Performance Line Off Road Racing Compound ( Indonesia )
    159mm used
    Hans Dampf 2.35 SG TS
    158mm
    Magic Mary SnakeSkin TrailStar 2.35":
    154mm used
    Muddy Mary 2.35" Freeride trailstar triple compound Snakeskin ( Indonesia )
    160mm used
    Nobby Nic 2.4" Snakeskin Evo Pacestar triple compound tubeless ready ( Indonesia )
    159mm used
    Rock Razor 2.35 PS SS
    152mm used

    Specialized
    Clutch Control 2bliss ( Taiwan ) 2.3"
    149mm used

    WTB
    Prowler SS 2.3" Race FR 60tpi Aramid bead/ Super Track DNA Rubber ( China )
    149mm used
    Weirwolf 2.3" AM TSC FR 60tpi Aramid bead/ Inner peace/ Dual DNA ( China )
    146mm used
    Weirwolf 2.3" wire bead ( China )
    140mm used
    Weirwolf 2.1" Race xc 60tpi Aramid bead/ DNA Rubber ( China )
    140mm used
    All barks have been rendered into english...

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,664
    Quote Originally Posted by cdn-dave View Post
    reminder
    Ok, so the tread on this tire is staggered. I measured from the middle to the widest tread block and timed that by 2. I got 56mm at the tread and 59mm at the sidewall. That's at 20 psi. These are very light tires, so a little higher psi is needed.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ryguy79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Oh, I see now. You live in Texas. You don't have any real mountains there. That make a lot of sense.
    I'll give you most of Texas. But there are real mountains there.

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Ok, so the tread on this tire is staggered. I measured from the middle to the widest tread block and timed that by 2. I got 56mm at the tread and 59mm at the sidewall. That's at 20 psi. These are very light tires, so a little higher psi is needed.
    Thanks! Still gotta compare to what I have in now, doesn't seem like a huge difference unfortunately (great deal on Mutanos). I even managed to sell a 2.0 tire to make room for new gear

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: usernamehere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    114
    Here is a pretty good write up on velocity p35s:
    https://vikapproved.wordpress.com/20...el-comparison/

    Myself- I am currently pondering building a wheelset out of these rims but being in Canada the exchange rate And shipping is killer.
    All are good suggestions
    Last edited by usernamehere; 12-10-2016 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Wrong rim mention

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    5
    Measured my tires for anyone running a similar fork. Race King 2.2 came in at 55 mm on a standard 23 mm rim and the Mountain King 2.4 came in at 61 mm on a Dually 45 mm rim. The XC 32 fork definitely can't handle more tire.
    Fattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-conti-mountain-king.jpg
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-conti-race-king.jpg  


  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Gdillon View Post
    Measured my tires for anyone running a similar fork.
    Fattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-conti-mountain-king.jpg

    From experience, I think this tyre might rub on the sides of the arch during aggressive riding. Won't flip you over the bars or anything but if it does it'll take the paint off. The tight gap at the top will also turn stones into very effective paint removing teeth. You can run the tyre, but it's tight.

  18. #118
    1 by 1 pixel?
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,944
    Yep, like Pig says be carefull. ^^Those specific rubbers grow with use, more so as bead to bead measurements get larger and even more with tubeless sealants
    All barks have been rendered into english...

  19. #119
    WRB
    WRB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WRB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Gdillon View Post
    Measured my tires for anyone running a similar fork. Race King 2.2 came in at 55 mm on a standard 23 mm rim and the Mountain King 2.4 came in at 61 mm on a Dually 45 mm rim. The XC 32 fork definitely can't handle more tire.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	conti mountain king.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	56.5 KB 
ID:	1112848
    So I should be able to fit a Conti Trail King 2.4 on my XC28 then? Because a XC32 just has larger diameter stanchions right?

    Probably gonna lose the front fender though...

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,909
    Quote Originally Posted by WRB View Post
    So I should be able to fit a Conti Trail King 2.4 on my XC28 then? Because a XC32 just has larger diameter stanchions right?
    Look at the picture. Do you want to risk it?

  21. #121
    WRB
    WRB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WRB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Look at the picture. Do you want to risk it?
    Why not, Amazon has a good return policy anyway.

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,909
    Quote Originally Posted by WRB View Post
    Why not, Amazon has a good return policy anyway.
    Do they take back used tyres? Because you're not going to know if the tyre will demolish your arch until you ride it.

  23. #123
    WRB
    WRB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WRB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Do they take back used tyres? Because you're not going to know if the tyre will demolish your arch until you ride it.
    They do supposedly, but you do have a point. I think I'll try it with the 2.2's.

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by cdn-dave View Post
    Thanks! Still gotta compare to what I have in now, doesn't seem like a huge difference unfortunately (great deal on Mutanos). I even managed to sell a 2.0 tire to make room for new gear
    Follow-up: I mounted a NOS WTB Mutano Raptor DNA 2.4 to a Velocity Aeroheat 18-559 rim, and measured 54mm outside tread width. Sorry, forgot to check the pressure - hard-ish, say around 25 psi.

    It actually doesn't seem that squirrelly on the narrow rim, though I've already started looking into swapping in a wider rim (~25mm).

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6
    OK, I really want to put 2.8" tires on my FSR but Specialized put really narrow rims on that year, 17mm inner width. Now I am looking for wheels with rims of approximately 30mm inner width.

    Unfortunately, my old FSR uses skewer hubs and wider wheels are not common for that setup.

  26. #126
    Hardtail Steel Forever
    Reputation: jestep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by pedro_uno View Post
    OK, I really want to put 2.8" tires on my FSR but Specialized put really narrow rims on that year, 17mm inner width. Now I am looking for wheels with rims of approximately 30mm inner width.

    Unfortunately, my old FSR uses skewer hubs and wider wheels are not common for that setup.
    Many hubs can change between QR and thru axle setups. If you get new wheels just make sure to get hubs that you can convert.
    WTB: Med Bontrager Ti Lite, PM Me...

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Has anyone mentioned the WTB Rangers?

    https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KU8JO0S/

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    Has anyone mentioned the WTB Rangers?

    https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KU8JO0S/
    Those are exactly the tires I want to fit on my bike. I got a pair on sale in the 2.8" width. I'm going to mount them on my skinny rims to see how they fit on the bike. If they look good I going to get wider rimmed wheels for them.

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Nice, they make those in 2.8 and 3.0. With wide rims, the 2.8 will be closer to 3.0 and the 3.0 will be closer to 3.2, making them very fatty kobe beefy fat.

    Also, I found their tread design a bit faster than the Nobby Nics, but the Nics are great going down real steep sections.

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by WRB View Post
    So I should be able to fit a Conti Trail King 2.4 on my XC28 then? Because a XC32 just has larger diameter stanchions right?

    Probably gonna lose the front fender though...

    Holy crap that is close. Both of my bikes have about 0.4 or 0.5 inches of clearance with standard 2.5 or 2.4 inch wide tires. 2.8's will not fit, I've measured. On papger they may, but it's too close, see below. That's why I'll get a 27.5" fork on the 26" bike to make the 2.8's fit.

    One easy thing to do if you want to buy a wider tire: take a standard 26 x 1.95 inch tire, OR whatever you are running, and measure in fractions of an inch how far the top of the front tire is from the bottom of the arch. It should be 0.5-1.0 inch away (not like in the picture above lol). For every 0.1 inches of width you want to go up, you multiply by 0.8 (so if you are going from 2.4 to 2.8, then 0.4 inches wider x 0.8 = 0.32 inches higher towards the arch). In theory the 2.8 will fit but in reality like others have said if the tire grows more at all, it's going to rub and that's way too dangerous to take a gamble on. Could you imagine going downhill over 12 mph, hit a bump, and one of the knobs catches on the fork arch? That's a quick trip over the bars at speed.
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  31. #131
    Just A Mountain Biker.
    Reputation: blaklabl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Do they take back used tyres?
    Yes, they do. I just returned a set of IKON's I purchased based on the sellers answer to my question, which was incorrect. The description was spotty, I asked for clarification, they gave me one but it was wrong (was not EXO casing, was EXC casing). I tried them for one ride but spent the entire time worried I was going to tear a sidewall on those EXC tires, so I boxed them up and sent them back. Had full credit within an hour of putting them in the Amazon locker.
    MTBR: Your dad's online mountain bike forum.



  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by pedro_uno View Post
    Those are exactly the tires I want to fit on my bike. I got a pair on sale in the 2.8" width. I'm going to mount them on my skinny rims to see how they fit on the bike. If they look good I going to get wider rimmed wheels for them.
    Pedro let me and others know how they MEASURE. I just ordered the 2.8 as well. I ordered the Maxxis 2.7, put it on a 21mm rim, and it's 2.4. So I don't know if the WTB Ranger will do the same thing (start out 2.8, end up 2.5). Maybe we have to order the 3.0 to get actual 2.6 or 2.7 on a standard rim, can you believe that...

    Since his post was 2 weeks ago I assume he's happy with the Rangers. They are only $30 on Amazon.
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Rangers are 60 bucks not 30. And you will need some wide rims to take advantage of the with otherwise you're going to end up with bulbs.

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    Rangers are 60 bucks not 30. And you will need some wide rims to take advantage of the with otherwise you're going to end up with bulbs.

    Qty:
    $29.99 + $4.99 shipping
    WTB Ranger TCS Light/High Grip 26" Mountain Tire - BLACK, 26X2.8 (see below)
    Wilderness Trail Bikes
    WTB Ranger TCS Light/High Grip 26" Mountain Tire
    Price: $29.99 + $4.99 shipping
    Ships from and sold by Bike Nashbar.
    Size: 26X3.0


    I have to admit they were not easy to find, you can't just type in 26 x 3.0 and find them, they were hidden in a 2.8 tire option to go 3.0. As for bulbs, sorry, I'm not drinking the koolaid on the + rims yet.
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    Qty:
    $29.99 + $4.99 shipping
    WTB Ranger TCS Light/High Grip 26" Mountain Tire - BLACK, 26X2.8 (see below)
    Wilderness Trail Bikes
    WTB Ranger TCS Light/High Grip 26" Mountain Tire
    Price: $29.99 + $4.99 shipping
    Ships from and sold by Bike Nashbar.
    Size: 26X3.0


    I have to admit they were not easy to find, you can't just type in 26 x 3.0 and find them, they were hidden in a 2.8 tire option to go 3.0. As for bulbs, sorry, I'm not drinking the koolaid on the + rims yet.
    That's a crazy sale they have going on at nashbar, props man! Buy them from nashbar and you get free ship at 50 bucks. I went for the light/fast rolling compound since they are so damn wide anyways the grip is already quite high. Also I should warn you that the Rangers are very tall tires and if you have skinny ish rims, they will be even taller. You'll find out yourself.

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    320
    2.8 x 26" rangers on stan's baron 35mm internal wheels are dope AF!

  37. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by DOCRIGID View Post
    2.8 x 26" rangers on stan's baron 35mm internal wheels are dope AF!
    Agree. Can I ask what fork are you using and how much clearance do you have on the arch?

  38. #138
    Thread already spun
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    Agree. Can I ask what fork are you using and how much clearance do you have on the arch?
    Rigid, and a shitload.

    (Just a guess from the nick)

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    lol

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Rigid, and a shitload.

    (Just a guess from the nick)
    26" pike, plenty of room, pikes will easily take a 2.8" tire.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    120
    On my old Intense Uzzi with a Magura Durin Race fork I run 26 x 50mm Rabbit Hole rims with WTB Vigilante 2.3 tires, which measure 2.550". I was able to clear a WTB 2.8" on the front, but not the back.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-50mm-rim-wtb2.3-sm.jpg  


  42. #142
    Thread already spun
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by DOCRIGID View Post
    26" pike, plenty of room, pikes will easily take a 2.8" tire.
    So when you going to 3"?

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    320
    during winter when the rigid fork goes on! lol

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by gumba View Post
    On my old Intense Uzzi with a Magura Durin Race fork I run 26 x 50mm Rabbit Hole rims with WTB Vigilante 2.3 tires, which measure 2.550". I was able to clear a WTB 2.8" on the front, but not the back.
    I was able to clear 2.8 Rangers on the back of my kids frame, albeit with a slight dish adjust in there rear. The fronts barely clear the 3.0 Rangers after the arch on the SID was modified. I'm going to swap to a 2.8 for good measure. At 18 psi on the 3.0 there is .5 in in the arch. At 30 psi that shrinks to .25 in... need more clearance. I'm gonna switch to another 2.8 in front for good measure. It's annoying how low the arch is on a SID. The kid is 80lbs wet, doesn't even make it on the weight chart so a SID is like a Pike for him lol.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-lqtfzitl.jpg  


  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Bingo! Putting 2.4" tires on skinny rims will make the handling worse. So, you'll need wide rims and also a tubless setup to get the most benefit out of wide tires. Otherwise you'll get a lot of floppage with wide tires on a skinny rim.

    Yeah but I'd much rather have floppyness on a 2.4 and be able to get down the hill faster and safer than with a 1.95 inch tire. Try going downhill with a 1.95 with a rocky surface and see how 'well' it handles. The front tire ends up choosing it's own line through the path of least rock resistance, sometimes leading the rest of the bike off the trail and hopefully into a bush and not a ditch. That doesn't happen with a wider tire, even on a narrow rim. You have control going down the hill. Control is nice. Not crashing is nice. Wider is nicer, wide rims or not.
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    Yeah but I'd much rather have floppyness on a 2.4 and be able to get down the hill faster and safer than with a 1.95 inch tire. Try going downhill with a 1.95 with a rocky surface and see how 'well' it handles. The front tire ends up choosing it's own line through the path of least rock resistance, sometimes leading the rest of the bike off the trail and hopefully into a bush and not a ditch. That doesn't happen with a wider tire, even on a narrow rim. You have control going down the hill. Control is nice. Not crashing is nice. Wider is nicer, wide rims or not.
    That's fundamentally incorrect. Rim width supports the sidewalls of a tire. When the rim is too narrow for a tire, the sidewalls are not supported properly and there will be loss of control, ie floppage as quoted.

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    That's a crazy sale they have going on at nashbar, props man! Buy them from nashbar and you get free ship at 50 bucks. I went for the light/fast rolling compound since they are so damn wide anyways the grip is already quite high. Also I should warn you that the Rangers are very tall tires and if you have skinny ish rims, they will be even taller. You'll find out yourself.

    I have not mounted them yet. I also have the light/fast rolling type. As for tallness, I look that as a great advantage for a 26" tire, because it's really a standard 27.5 that's 0.7 inches wider. Good compromise mix of height and width for rollover, traction, and handling, at least that's my hope. Height is not an issue anyway because I'll put them in a 27.5 fork.

    But that's not what I'm noticing about these tires. The light/fast rolling ones are really, really thin-walled. I mean compared to a Maxxis 2.5 tire I have, the WTB 2.8 looks like a shell of a tire, not a real, thick, heavy, solid-beaded TR tire. Yes I got what I paid for, I'm not complaining, but the tire is huge and only weighs 1.0 lbs. How can someone go tubeless with such a thin and flimsy sidewall and bead profile? I'd think air would be escaping all over the place with this jellyfish of a tire. Just to play it safe and because I really don't completely know what I'm doing, bought Kenda 2.4-2.7 tubes, mainly to mount the the tire easier. I have not had good luck trying to mount + tires tubeless on 24 mm non-TR rims. Really excited to see how the 2.8's do tho, even with tubes in.
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    That's fundamentally incorrect. Rim width supports the sidewalls of a tire. When the rim is too narrow for a tire, the sidewalls are not supported properly and there will be loss of control, ie floppage as quoted.
    OK you guys. I'm a beginner. I don't know nearly as much as you guys do. However, there is no debate when I take the same rim and go from 1.95 inch to 2.4 inch, and get way better traction and stability downhill. No debate. Someone that never even went down a hill on a bike before could easily tell the difference. No convincing me from some manufacturer's theoretical rim upsell that my 2.4 tires are WORSE for going downhill on a 21mm rim than 1.95's. It's just not true. And remember I mean going straight down a hill with loose rocks, not down a switchback or some technical downhill trail that would require a lot of cornering, that's a different story. The added height and width of a wider tire more than makes up for any sidewall weakness in a relatively straight line down the hill.

    People put wider tires on standard rims all the time and I don't hear them complaining that the ride is horrible. They just comment about the bad old days in the 1990's when they were stuck with a 2 inch tire, before the golden age of tire sizes came. If there are complaints about 2.35-2.50 inch tires on standard 17-25mm rims, please copy and paste them, because I have not really found them on here.

    Here is the issue about tire to rim width I don't understand. I've posted a lot on this before in here so I apologize in advance for being redundant, but it seems that + rims may end up causing more problems than they solve. A lot of people complain that their tires are too squared off, the side knobs are now pointing up instead of out, the rolling resistance is worse because of the knobs now being crowded on top, the treadwear is much faster, etc.

    From what I've read, the consensus is 2.3 to 2.5 is 25-30mm rim, 2.6 to 2.8 is 30-40mm rim, and 2.8 to 3.0 is 35-45mm rim. Taking the extremes of those (thinnest tire to widest rim, and widest tire to thinnest rim), you have a range between 1.6 to 2.5 tire to width rato. So far so good. But look at the standard 26" tire that's been around for decades, 1.95 inches wide on a 19mm rim, that's 2.6x tire to rim.

    Why do wider tires need proportionally much wider rims? Why not keep a 2.0-3.0 tire to rim ratio from the standard rim sizes? Do 1.95 inch tires handle poorly because their tire to rim width is 2.6x? I don't see many people making that argument. It just seems like under a 2.0x ratio, the benefits of a wider rim start getting overshadowed by all of the problems mentioned above: a square tire, improperly placed side knobs, etc. And some people even say traction and handling is compromised with too wide of a rim. So there may be an optimal ratio between around 2.0 to 3.0, and the + rims fall below that and start causing other problems. All I know is that I read about more problems with + rims than I read about someone with a + tire having problems with a standard rim (besides mounting and going tubeless). Once the tire is on there it's not that bad.
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  49. #149
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,270
    I stuck tires in the 2.35 and bigger range on 'skinny' rims for almost 20 years and it was always an improvement, as long as you're not stupid about pressure.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    OK you guys. I'm a beginner. I don't know nearly as much as you guys do. However, there is no debate when I take the same rim and go from 1.95 inch to 2.4 inch, and get way better traction and stability downhill. No debate. Someone that never even went down a hill on a bike before could easily tell the difference. No convincing me from some manufacturer's theoretical rim upsell that my 2.4 tires are WORSE for going downhill on a 21mm rim than 1.95's. It's just not true. And remember I mean going straight down a hill with loose rocks, not down a switchback or some technical downhill trail that would require a lot of cornering, that's a different story. The added height and width of a wider tire more than makes up for any sidewall weakness in a relatively straight line down the hill.

    People put wider tires on standard rims all the time and I don't hear them complaining that the ride is horrible. They just comment about the bad old days in the 1990's when they were stuck with a 2 inch tire, before the golden age of tire sizes came. If there are complaints about 2.35-2.50 inch tires on standard 17-25mm rims, please copy and paste them, because I have not really found them on here.

    Here is the issue about tire to rim width I don't understand. I've posted a lot on this before in here so I apologize in advance for being redundant, but it seems that + rims may end up causing more problems than they solve. A lot of people complain that their tires are too squared off, the side knobs are now pointing up instead of out, the rolling resistance is worse because of the knobs now being crowded on top, the treadwear is much faster, etc.

    From what I've read, the consensus is 2.3 to 2.5 is 25-30mm rim, 2.6 to 2.8 is 30-40mm rim, and 2.8 to 3.0 is 35-45mm rim. Taking the extremes of those (thinnest tire to widest rim, and widest tire to thinnest rim), you have a range between 1.6 to 2.5 tire to width rato. So far so good. But look at the standard 26" tire that's been around for decades, 1.95 inches wide on a 19mm rim, that's 2.6x tire to rim.

    Why do wider tires need proportionally much wider rims? Why not keep a 2.0-3.0 tire to rim ratio from the standard rim sizes? Do 1.95 inch tires handle poorly because their tire to rim width is 2.6x? I don't see many people making that argument. It just seems like under a 2.0x ratio, the benefits of a wider rim start getting overshadowed by all of the problems mentioned above: a square tire, improperly placed side knobs, etc. And some people even say traction and handling is compromised with too wide of a rim. So there may be an optimal ratio between around 2.0 to 3.0, and the + rims fall below that and start causing other problems. All I know is that I read about more problems with + rims than I read about someone with a + tire having problems with a standard rim (besides mounting and going tubeless). Once the tire is on there it's not that bad.
    Let's have some guys who are much more credentialed than I explain it. This is coming from the road aspect but the fundamentals are fundamentals and it is generally the same for all disciplines, albeit the aerodynamics doesn't really affect/apply to mtbs. These are the same principles that are at play with auto tires and auto racing. That said a 23mm id rim is at its limit with a 2.4in tire and its very much a bulb at this point. You are using an even narrower rim wanting to mount a 2.8-3.0 tire. The mismatch is extreme imo.

    Technical FAQ: Wide rims, light bulbs and quonset huts | VeloNews.com

    Quote Originally Posted by from Jake Pantone, marketing and sponsorship director for ENVE
    Cornering feel and sensation can certainly be improved with wider rims as long as the tire size is properly mated to the rim. In the case of our Smart ENVE System (SES) wheels the front rim is 26mm wide. The extra width came into existence strictly based on aerodynamic data, but in the process you also provide a wider platform for the tire to mate with. Essentially you are broadening the base of the triangle, making the tire’s sidewalls spread out more, and eliminating what is commonly referred to as “tire-roll,” which is essentially lateral flex in the tire’s sidewall. As the tire’s width gets larger than the rim’s tire interface you begin opening the door for the tire to begin flexing laterally again. Another factor in the equation is tire pressure. In order to reduce excessive tire roll, say with a 20mm-wide rim and 23mm or 25mm tire, you have to run higher (generally accepted as normal) pressure. With a wider rim you can run less pressure (10-20psi less) because the added support is mechanically preventing the tire from being able to roll or flex, thus improving traction.
    Quote Originally Posted by from Joshua Poertner, technical director for Zipp Speed Weaponry
    The difference between the light-bulb shaped tire Dennis talks about and the geometry of a tire on a wide bead seat rim primarily affects the lateral deflection of the tire when cornering. I too have heard the “flop over” description used, but basically as the tire rotates down to contact the road, it is laterally deflected by the cornering forces, this results in a deformation that leaves the tire not actually going in exactly the direction it is pointed. Technically this is called “slip angle” and there is a lot of great stuff on the Internet about it. Less slip angle yields more responsive handling, higher slip angles can feel vague or even sketchy; taken to extreme examples, we’ve all had slow front leak that we thought we could get home on and found that a front road tire with 20psi can be turned quite noticeably before actually changing the direction of the bike.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonard Zinn, Velonews
    The wider rim allows the tire to spread out more (like a Quonset hut rather than like a light bulb), so there is a reduced tendency for pinch flats. Other than the larger tire keeping the bike higher up off of hard impacts and thus reducing pinch flats, the narrow rim with wider tire increases the tendency for pinching the tube at lower pressures, because its width overhangs the rim more and thus can more easily catch some inner tube between the rim and the tire.

    The wider rim reduces the tendency for the tire to flex laterally when cornering, as it triangulates the tire more by widening its base and making it less susceptible to flex due to side forces. The wider tire has the opposite effect.

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Fattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-velo13-1.jpg

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,377

    Turner 5 Spot with WTB Ranger 2.8

    My main ride is 29”, but I wanted to freshen my backup bike for another year, so I decided to give some big volume tires a try.

    Went with wtb ranger 2.8” tires (the thin-walled version). I’m still using my wheelset/rims from a few years ago, so not optimal. The rims are old-style Flows—about 23-24mm internal.

    The bigger tires ended up really no wider than the Conti x-king 2.4”, but they’re a lot taller—probably 10mm bigger radius (20mm OD). They fit, but I can’t go any bigger on the frame. The fork is also for 27.5, so there’s tons of room in the front.

    Weather is terrible so hasn’t been in the dirt yet...Fattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-8f4d5fda-a547-4137-8e38-a329013bf234.jpgFattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-0a802db7-22f0-4086-b125-300c77ff6603.jpgFattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-edfa021a-cf3d-442f-bd56-67a51ff17437.jpgFattest 26 tire for regular MTB?-e3382c74-90f2-4306-8dd8-36fe4b0d728f.jpg
    whatever...

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,896
    Quote Originally Posted by steadite View Post
    My main ride is 29”, but I wanted to freshen my backup bike for another year, so I decided to give some big volume tires a try.

    Went with wtb ranger 2.8” tires (the thin-walled version). I’m still using my wheelset/rims from a few years ago, so not optimal. The rims are old-style Flows—about 23-24mm internal.

    The bigger tires ended up really no wider than the Conti x-king 2.4”, but they’re a lot taller—probably 10mm bigger radius (20mm OD). They fit, but I can’t go any bigger on the frame. The fork is also for 27.5, so there’s tons of room in the front.

    Weather is terrible so hasn’t been in the dirt yet...Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8F4D5FDA-A547-4137-8E38-A329013BF234.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	105.0 KB 
ID:	1192936Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0A802DB7-22F0-4086-B125-300C77FF6603.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	67.3 KB 
ID:	1192937Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EDFA021A-CF3D-442F-BD56-67A51FF17437.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	51.3 KB 
ID:	1192938Click image for larger version. 

Name:	E3382C74-90F2-4306-8DD8-36FE4B0D728F.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	59.5 KB 
ID:	1192939
    Thanks for that information. I still ride my 2011 5-Spot and am running Hans Dampf tires at the moment but these 2.8 tires look interesting. My rims are 30mm carbon things and I wonder if it will fit.

    What size Spot was that?
    On MTBR, the reputation is infamous.

  54. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,377
    It’s a 2011 (or ‘12?) Large 5spot.

    I would think your rims would work better from the standpoint of the tire shape, but I’d guess it’d end up wider and less tall than on my narrow rims. I think it’d still work so long as you don’t ride in sticky mud.

    The one thing I’d say about the tires is the sidewalk seems kinda thin—sharp rocks would be a problem. There is a (heavier) thick walled version too.

    I’m pretty excited to give it a try once the foot of snow disappears.
    whatever...

  55. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by steadite View Post
    Went with wtb ranger 2.8” tires (the thin-walled version). I’m still using my wheelset/rims from a few years ago, so not optimal. The rims are old-style Flows—about 23-24mm internal.
    Wow man, that is a serious narrow/wide setup you have. 2.35's on my Crest light wheelset already looks way bulb-ish. I can't imagine running 2.8's on them. Make sure you have enough pressure so the tire doesn't deflect like crazy.

  56. #156
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,214
    In all those debate about wider this and bigger that , you have to keep in mind that all that stuff will comes with a weight penalty.

    I speak for myself : I prefer a little smaller and lighter for when I climb.

    2,2 is a good compromise me thinks.

    ( I have to say that I have a fat bike too when the need for big stuff comes up )
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  57. #157
    Thread already spun
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by fokof View Post
    In all those debate about wider this and bigger that , you have to keep in mind that all that stuff will comes with a weight penalty.
    Great point. I'd add: or a durability penalty, when it comes to casings.

    Although I'd also add I really liked wider than normal rims back when they were wider than normal.

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by fokof View Post
    In all those debate about wider this and bigger that , you have to keep in mind that all that stuff will comes with a weight penalty.

    I speak for myself : I prefer a little smaller and lighter for when I climb.

    2,2 is a good compromise me thinks.

    ( I have to say that I have a fat bike too when the need for big stuff comes up )
    That's not the point of going wide which is for more grip in all other conditions especially going downhill fast. If your main thing is xc and climbing then yea, lighter is better.

  59. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    10
    I shopped for tires today and holy shit....there are so many options out there now. I haven't shopped for mountain bike tires in almost 15 years. I have Panaracer Fire XCPro 2.1s on my little Mavic X139 19mm rims right now. Bought these tires back in about 2004. I settled on a pair of Continental Race King Protection 26x2.2 tubeless tires for my new rims I just ordered. New rims are Stan's MK3 Arch at 26mm internal width. I wimped out a bit on tire width at only 2.2 but I want to make sure they fit before I go bigger.

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Great point. I'd add: or a durability penalty, when it comes to casings.

    Although I'd also add I really liked wider than normal rims back when they were wider than normal.

    How wide are your current rims? I've been waiting forever for some DT Swiss 26" 24mm internal rims. They are taking like three weeks to ship. And what tire are you using on your rims Zowie?
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  61. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    That's not the point of going wide which is for more grip in all other conditions especially going downhill fast. If your main thing is xc and climbing then yea, lighter is better.

    But don't wider tires climb better as well? I don't care if a tire weighs 2 lbs instead of 1 lb if wider in the back climbs better in softer looser dirt. This is a really important question to have answered, because I'm considering changing the drivetrain to accommodate a wider tire in back, in order to clear the front derailleur and chain (frame can accept up to 2.8, but drivetrain/chain cannot).
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  62. #162
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,908
    I will say that bigger tires do climb better when traction is limited, plus they roll over rocks or uneven terrain with less effort. Regarding weight, it is a small % of the overall bike + rider, but yes for climbing on smoother trails or general riding, there is a small penalty. IMO, the significant penalty with bigger tires (and lower pressures that they allow) is increased rolling resistance on smoother terrain. On rough terrain, they actually roll faster IMO.

    29 x 3.0? Maybe too much (although there some say they are faster than standard sizes). 26 x 3.0 (or the biggest you can fit)? I'd say go for it.

  63. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegill View Post
    I shopped for tires today and holy shit....there are so many options out there now. I haven't shopped for mountain bike tires in almost 15 years. I have Panaracer Fire XCPro 2.1s on my little Mavic X139 19mm rims right now. Bought these tires back in about 2004. I settled on a pair of Continental Race King Protection 26x2.2 tubeless tires for my new rims I just ordered. New rims are Stan's MK3 Arch at 26mm internal width. I wimped out a bit on tire width at only 2.2 but I want to make sure they fit before I go bigger.
    LOL. Yes, play it conservative for now. Are you on a standard 26" fork? Try 26 x 2.5 next time (I assume 2.8 will not fit inside your fork arch). I have a 2.4 on right now and it's so much nicer and cushier than 1.95's, that you could actually get a rigid fork and live with it. Ample cushion and traction, so much nicer going downhill. I'm even using it right now on my 27.5" to see how much better the bike handles with the front lowered down 1.5 inches.
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  64. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    But don't wider tires climb better as well? I don't care if a tire weighs 2 lbs instead of 1 lb if wider in the back climbs better in softer looser dirt. This is a really important question to have answered, because I'm considering changing the drivetrain to accommodate a wider tire in back, in order to clear the front derailleur and chain (frame can accept up to 2.8, but drivetrain/chain cannot).
    Sort of... rather it depends. In traction limited situations due to terrain, ie. loose stuff, rocky stuff more traction is better. You can clear a section where the xc guys have to walk it up. However on climbs w/o traction problems a skinny ass xc tire will eat the wide plus tire up.

    It's a compromise like anything else. Choose that which gives you the most advantage on your trails. For ex. my kids races so I built him a plus set of wheels and a skinny arse crest set for race days. Its the best of both worlds. His bike will literally lose a 1.5lbs going from one wheelset to the other.

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Please excuse the rant; waiting for ever for a wheelset that never came. Frigging Niagra Cycle Works. And to think I played it safe and went through Amazon instead of E-Bay for the $210 Stan's No Tubes Flow 559x25's. Was not safe enough was it...

    Amazon return description:
    ONE front wheel arrived. And it was 559x18, NOT 559x24. Very disappointed. If you have the correct set of 559x24 wheels, send them, otherwise refund my money.
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  66. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    10
    My Stan's No Tubes MK3 Arch wheels just arrived this afternoon from Colorado Cyclist. Damn they look nice! I have another package on its way from Competitive Cyclist with disc brakes, rotors, 11-speed cassette, chain, rear derailleur, & rear shifter. Almost time to start building.

  67. #167
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,214
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    Regarding weight, it is a small % of the overall bike + rider, but yes for climbing on smoother trails or general riding, there is a small penalty.
    One pound more at the wheel IS a lot more significant than anywhere else on a bike.
    The farter away from the axle , the more energy it takes the move the wheel.
    (one reason I'm still running a 26er)
    A hub doesn't change anything , a tire will change a lot.

    I also use my Fatbike in summer with 4,4 JJ , a completely different animal.
    Yes , it does have better traction on some parts but I still climb a lot faster on my 2,2 MTB , I'm pretty sure it's all about wheel weight.

    The difference in traction between my 2,2 and my 4,4 is another story because it's an entirely different bike/ride/purpose.


    Point being that the difference in traction between a 2,2 and a 2,5 isn't worth the weight added , for me anyways.
    Last edited by fokof; 4 Days Ago at 09:37 AM.
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  68. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    10
    I’ll have to do actual weight measurements once I have my new wheels tired and rotored but my calculations indicate that I’ll shed 1.5 pounds per wheel. I will definitely feel that difference.

  69. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    Let's have some guys who are much more credentialed than I explain it. This is coming from the road aspect but the fundamentals are fundamentals and it is generally the same for all disciplines, albeit the aerodynamics doesn't really affect/apply to mtbs. These are the same principles that are at play with auto tires and auto racing. That said a 23mm id rim is at its limit with a 2.4in tire and its very much a bulb at this point. You are using an even narrower rim wanting to mount a 2.8-3.0 tire. The mismatch is extreme imo.

    Technical FAQ: Wide rims, light bulbs and quonset huts | VeloNews.com

    Most of this information above is good.

    However, let me remind you that we are in the 26" forum. The standard 26" tire is 1.95 inches wide. A very common XC internal rim width for a 26" wheel is 19mm. It could be 17, 18, 19, 21, etc. but let's take 19mm as the mean or median. 49.5mm / 19 mm = 2.6x tire to rim ratio. And those tires and rims have been used successfully for decades, have they not?

    Let's compare that to your example of a 2.4 inch tire with a 23 mm rim. 61mm / 23 mm = 2.7x tire to rim ratio, almost identical to the tried and true 1.95 inch tire on a 19mm rim that's 2.6x. The reason I don't think people make a big deal about the 1.95 inch tire on a narrow rim is that the sidewalls on a more narrow tire hide the bulb more then on a fatter tire. It's still there, and it's not a big deal.

    Secondly, I assume the authors above are using tubes in the tires? Yes, you can't go down below a certain pressure with tubes on every setup, no matter how wide the rim is. This is a separate issue; you have to specify if the setup is tubeless or not before proceeding to any other debate on the subject. According to the authors, you can lower the pressure in a tube with a wider rim, and that may approach what you could do tubeless with a slightly more narrow rim, but now we are in a gray area that's untested and doesn't have adequate data. This needs to be performed. Most MTB'ers go tubeless over 2.5 inches so it's hard to know how tubes and psi affect handling with the tire vs. rim size; too many variables.

    I look at it in a totally different way: I put on the tires on the rims (with tubes) and see how it goes. It's called real-world testing. I have not mounted the 2.8 on a 25mm wheel yet, still waiting for that wheel. It's TR so I'm hoping I can do this tubeless and have everything work out the way I want. If it doesn't, I LEARN from this experience. This is experimental. This is not dogma that is unchanging. Below is my personal experience with relatively wide tires on narrow rims:

    26" bike, 26 x 1.95 inch tire, 19 or 21mm rim: fine, decent cornering, just not great downhill or in chunky stuff (not good at all). Tire to rim ratio: 2.6x

    26" bike, 26 x 2.4 inch tire, 21mm rim: GREAT, some floppiness, but that is GOOD on a hardtail for cushion. No squirm, no float. Cornering is OK, no significant difference from a more narrow tire. Tire to rim ratio: 2.9x

    26" bike, 26 x 2.5 inch tire, 19mm rim: now that the ratio is over 3.0, yes squirm, yes float. Tentative conclusion is that on an older-geometry bike, ratio over 3.0 is not good like it was for 2.9x above. Tire to rim ratio 3.3x

    27.5" bike, modern geometry, 26 x 2.5 inch tire, 19mm rim: the modern geometry smoothed out or 'masked' the squirm/float problems the older-geo 26" could not. A tad bit of float but nothing annoying. Cornering not perfect but not worse than something between 2.5 and 3.0 ratio. Tire to rim ratio same as above, 3.3x

    27.5" bike, 27.5 x 2.5 inch tire, 23 mm rim: GREAT, some floppiness as in the 26 x 2.4, cornering a bit slower than a 26" probably because of the larger tire size. Good downhill and in chunky stuff. Tire to rim ratio: 2.8x


    Tentative, working conclusion: tire to rim ratios between 2.5 and 3.0 are fine, as long as someone is not doing fast, aggressive riding and cornering. The ratios above are more for casual "fun" riding like what many people do on a fat bike. If someone is a serious rider looking to win races or Strava trail times, or some other trophy, then the ratios above are probably not for them. But then why are they still on a 26" to begin with??? 26" bikes are for having fun. You can have fun with a 2.5 to 3.0 tire to rim ratio. You just can't corner as well as you might with a wider rim, but cornering is more of a skill than anything else, correct?
    ABSU: Arrogantly executing mythological occult metal since 1991.

  70. #170
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by fokof View Post
    One pound more at the wheel IS a lot more significant than anywhere else on a bike.
    The farter away from the axle , the more energy it takes the move the wheel.
    (one reason I'm still running a 26er)
    A hub doesn't change anything , a tire will change a lot.
    All true. The only calculated figure I've seen for that is roughly 2:1 in the tire or rim which was provided by CraigSJ IIRC. So 1 pound in the tire or rim = 2 pounds when you are accelerating the bike (climbing doesn't matter). Still a small % of the total weight of the bike. If anyone can calculate this and confirm or deny the 2:1 figure, I'd like to see it.

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,617
    This rotating weight stuff is nonsense.

    Have you had your bike up on a stand and tried to accelerate a heavy tire Vs. a light tire with your hand? The difference is negligible. If you were accelerating a tire from zero to 100 MPH, it would be huge, but you're usually accelerating from 3 MPH to 8 MPH, or thereabouts, if you're climbing.

    If you're in a level race, and you stop every 100 feet and then accelerate to 20 MPH it would also be huge.

    I went from 2.1"/2.25" tires on 1450 gram 27.5" wheels to 2.6" tires (same make and model) on 1600 gram, wider rimmed wheels at 27.5" and almost immediately started posting time-to-climb PR's.
    I'm up to seven, now.

    This is up there with the idea you have to work on brake discs in space suits so you don't "contaminate" them.

  72. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    All true. The only calculated figure I've seen for that is roughly 2:1 in the tire or rim which was provided by CraigSJ IIRC. So 1 pound in the tire or rim = 2 pounds when you are accelerating the bike (climbing doesn't matter). Still a small % of the total weight of the bike. If anyone can calculate this and confirm or deny the 2:1 figure, I'd like to see it.
    It's not 2:1 (hyperbole) because not all the wheel weight is at the rim. This info is everywhere and its fundamental to a lot of things like cars and auto racing, etc etc. Every ME knows these are basics. In general a 1 pound difference in outer wheel weight nets an average of 6w savings. Taken on its own its rather small. That's not much but you add that together thru the course of a race distance and you will have an appreciable savings.

    Another thing to consider is that Pro Tour teams always drop the aero wheels in the mountains. They have their own engineers working out their math to calc their wattage use so I'm sure they know a thing or two about saving watts.

    All that said in almost all situations aero trumps weight except during accelerations.

    Wheel Performance

  73. #173
    Thread already spun
    Reputation: Zowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,502
    If rotating weight was nonsense, everyone would have massive traction on fat bikes.

    Why are they tanking on sales again?

  74. #174
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    It's not 2:1 (hyperbole) because not all the wheel weight is at the rim. This info is everywhere and its fundamental to a lot of things like cars and auto racing, etc etc. Every ME knows these are basics.
    As I stated the 2:1 figure is for weight at the tire / rim (not at the hub or even the spokes). And that is what we are talking about here – wider heavier tires and maybe a wider rim to go with it. I’m not an engineer (doesn’t appear you are either!), but I first read about moment of inertia and grasped a basic understanding of it as a kid reading Car and Driver magazine sometime around 1980. As stated before, I am open to having the 2:1 figure clarified. I would actually welcome that. However, you’ve provided no information to refute it or provide a corrected ratio.

    Quote Originally Posted by thesmokingman View Post
    In general a 1 pound difference in outer wheel weight nets an average of 6w savings. Taken on its own its rather small. That's not much but you add that together thru the course of a race distance and you will have an appreciable savings.

    Another thing to consider is that Pro Tour teams always drop the aero wheels in the mountains. They have their own engineers working out their math to calc their wattage use so I'm sure they know a thing or two about saving watts.

    All that said in almost all situations aero trumps weight except during accelerations.
    Not sure if you are aware of this, but the link you posted and the information you copied from it is for Road Bikes. Aero is much less significant for MTB vs road.

    I’m very interested in hearing details regarding the 1 pound at the outer wheel nets 6 watts statement you made. How did you come up with that figure? Does it apply to Road, MTB or both?

  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    As I stated the 2:1 figure is for weight at the tire / rim (not at the hub or even the spokes). And that is what we are talking about here – wider heavier tires and maybe a wider rim to go with it. I’m not an engineer (doesn’t appear you are either!), but I first read about moment of inertia and grasped a basic understanding of it as a kid reading Car and Driver magazine sometime around 1980. As stated before, I am open to having the 2:1 figure clarified. I would actually welcome that. However, you’ve provided no information to refute it or provide a corrected ratio.


    Not sure if you are aware of this, but the link you posted and the information you copied from it is for Road Bikes. Aero is much less significant for MTB vs road.

    I’m very interested in hearing details regarding the 1 pound at the outer wheel nets 6 watts statement you made. How did you come up with that figure? Does it apply to Road, MTB or both?
    That 2:1 is a ballpark that's been thrown around in car circles for generations. It has no bearing on bikes. It's also more about keeping the wheels planted to the ground and change of direction (handling) than what we're after. The fundamental is the same though.

    Of course I know the data I linked is about road bikes. It doesn't have to be about mtbs specifically to apply to mtb bikes especially since no one is doing any science publicly on this front. And add to that there are so many variables if we're talking about this applied to a trail. Thus remove what doesn't fit and keep the essential math. The numbers apply to mtbs regardless and as you wrote the aero is not really applicable or important. There many places on the internets that this discussion has cropped before and in the future no doubt. This really isn't that important for most of us though it's probably the heart of the matter when it comes to xc racers.

    You can get the wattage difference by setting up some parameters like total weight vs lightened weight, getting that weight accelerated up to X speed then comparing the difference. By the math below shows the average difference to be around 6w give or take.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/commen...tating_weight/

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Biggest/ Fattest NON-29+ tire????
    By larryniner in forum 29er Components
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-09-2015, 07:42 AM
  2. Fattest Tire that will fit in 170mm?
    By durkind in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-08-2014, 12:17 PM
  3. What is the fattest 29'er tire
    By jaycastlerock in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 04:57 AM
  4. Fattest 650b tire?
    By Miker J in forum 27.5
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 05-07-2013, 08:39 PM
  5. fattest tire 04 kona dawg?
    By norcalruckus in forum Kona
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-11-2011, 12:51 AM

Members who have read this thread: 129

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.