Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,582

    Next time someone whines to you that its not that much bigger...

    or that their 26" tires are almost the same size, show them these photos.






    From left to right,

    - Schwalbe 1st Gen Racing Ralph, 26 x 2.25 labeled size, 26.25" actual diameter, 53mm actual width (so a 2.1, what most XC racers/riders would typically run)
    - Kenda Kinetics Stick-E, 26 x 2.35 labeled size, 26.7" actual diameter, 55.6mm actual width (a good "trail or AM" bike tire example)
    - Kenda Nevegal Stick-E, 26 x 2.35 labeled size, 26.9" actual diameter, 58.3mm actual width (another good "trail/AM" bike tire example)
    - Schwalbe 2nd Gen Racing Ralph, 650B x 2.25 labeled size, 27.4" actual diameter, 54mm actual width (popular 650B tire for the racer folks and for conversions)
    - Pacenti NeoMoto, 650B x 2.3 labeled size, 27.55" actual diameter, 56.6mm actual width (the most popular 650B tire thus far, most of us probably used a pair for our first conversions/bikes)
    - Kenda Karma, 29 x 1.9 labeled size, 28.9" actual diameter, 48mm actual width (great example of a "XC Racing" 29er... the dugast 29 x 2.0s and Notubes Crow 29 x 2.0s are pretty much identical size to this)

    Now the Kenda 26ers are mounted to Sun Doubletrack rims, so they're getting maximum rim width advantage to their widths and volumes possible. The 650B tires are both mounted to Weinmann Discovery rims which are very much at the wider stage of what most of us use for trail riding... they're wider than Blunts for example. The Karma is on a typical 24mm width XC type rim and the 26er RaRa is on a 26mm width XC rim.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,160
    You need to get you hands on the new 2.35" Schwalbe Nobby Nick tires. Gotta be the tallest 650B tire going at close to 28" in diameter. Not sure I can go back to those wimpy Neo Motos now
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

  3. #3
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,945
    And despite all that effort, they'll be many who will still stick to their case, since they can argue rim differences, tire and wear differences, photo taking procedure, how level the ground and background is, etc and how those can lead to misleading info.

    Is that an i9 hub on that new 29er wheel?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: carverboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    556
    My Nevagal 2.3 was within a half to three quarters of a inch of a ra ra 29 at the trail the other day. Next time I ride with the same guy I will snap a shot.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    26
    Wow. That's a great comparison.

  6. #6
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,582
    Nah its some joytech or something, i hate i9 stuff anyway and would never buy it. Expensive Proprietary spokes? No thanks.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,605
    Not to be the Devil's Advocate, but that second picture isn't very convincing, and neither are your measurements. The far left 650b tire is not much taller than the biggest 26" tire (Nevegal 2.35"), and according to your measurements, there's only a 1/2" between them. That's supposed to convince someone that it's significantly different? A half inch of wheel diameter- when it's really supposed to be closer to 1.5" - is a pretty poor argument.

    Out of curiosity, I went out and measured the 26" wheel on my NomadC (2.5" Maxxis Minion DHF on Easton Haven wheels) and found them to be right around 26.8". I'm not arguing for or against 650B tires/wheels since I haven't ridden a bike with them, but I'm not sure your argument is all that strong. I was expecting to see a bigger difference, personally.

  8. #8
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,582
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    Not to be the Devil's Advocate, but that second picture isn't very convincing, and neither are your measurements. The far left 650b tire is not much taller than the biggest 26" tire (Nevegal 2.35"), and according to your measurements, there's only a 1/2" between them. That's supposed to convince someone that it's significantly different? A half inch of wheel diameter- when it's really supposed to be closer to 1.5" - is a pretty poor argument.
    Actually it was never supposed to be 1.5" bigger in anything but name, hence the stupidity of some brands/people calling them 27.5ers... Most 26" labeled tires are NOT in fact, exactly 26" diameter. I thought about including a 26 x 1.5 in the photo series to show how much smaller diameter than 26" that tire is. I could also put in a 26 x 1.0 as I have some and they're 24.25" diameter. Tire diameters grow with tire widths, and the original 26" tires were named that by rounding down to the nearest whole number. Likewise referring to 650B mountain tires as 27.5 came from rounding down to the nearest tenth of an inch.

    Out of curiosity, I went out and measured the 26" wheel on my NomadC (2.5" Maxxis Minion DHF on Easton Haven wheels) and found them to be right around 26.8". I'm not arguing for or against 650B tires/wheels since I haven't ridden a bike with them, but I'm not sure your argument is all that strong. I was expecting to see a bigger difference, personally.
    Why? Did it never occur to you that a 26 x 2.5 was bigger than 26" diameter? Have you never looked at the tires of a DH bike next to an XC bike around a group ride?

    I could have added in one of my 26 x 3.8 wheels from my mukluk to the photo as well. There's more than just rim diameters as play in inflated tire diameters... you have the casing size, and the amount of tread on them also. The nevegal has tread blocks twice as deep/tall as the Racing Ralphs or Karmas. I have a Panaracer Rampage 29 x 2.35 I could put into a photo as well, along with a Schwalbe RaRa 29 x 2.4. If I had one of the Surly 29 x 3.0's to photograph I'd do that one also. They're supposedly close to 31 inches in actual diameter.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    230
    I just grabbed my two closest tires and measured them against the wall:

    26" Panaracer CG AM 2.35 on Stans Flow rims: 26.7in / 678mm diameter

    26" Maxxis Highroller 2.4 on Dt-Swiss 5.1d: 27.1in / 688mm diameter

    It is very interesting to see the real numbers.

  10. #10
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,945
    There's also the issue with rims. A tire only measures so much across, measuring bead to bead. Most mfgs believe a width of about 20mm is ideal, being the best compromise for tire shape/profile and rim weight, for the most common sized mtb tires. You can see how a tire's height is lower with wider rims with this illustration. Despite all the rage with wide rims these days, a good number of pro DHers still race on 21mm internal width rims (ex. Mavic DeeMax), at the one of the highest levels of the sport, pounding them at max speed over technical sections.

    Last edited by Varaxis; 12-05-2012 at 12:14 PM.

  11. #11
    Dissolved member
    Reputation: StiHacka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,629
    That picture is mighty misleading. The simulated widths of the widest rims are IMHO nowhere near reality in that picture.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    824
    26" mtb wheels and tires using a 2.1 to 2.25 tire, are closer to 26.5" and not 26"... convert the tire heights from this familiar graphic, or measure your own 2.1 tires. A 650B wheel with a 2.25" tire is about 27.5". The bottom line is the rims in 26" and 650B are essentially exactly 1 inch different in height. Add tires and compare apples to apples. Anyways, all that matters is anybody questioning the difference be willing to try 650B wheels/tires with an open mind.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Next time someone whines to you that its not that much bigger...-wheel_size_illus1.gif  


  13. #13
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,945
    It's not supposed to be an accurate representation. It's just simplified to give an idea of how the height of a tire's carcass is compromised when the beads are mounted wider, assuming the BSD is constant and the carcass inflates to a perfectly rounded shape. Applicable here, since people are talking about diameters of different tires on different rims. It's only misleading if you try to use the image to try and come with other conclusions that it wasn't intended to support.

  14. #14
    Dissolved member
    Reputation: StiHacka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,629
    Yes, but the widest rim available today - the P35 - will still be narrower than the point "1" on your X axis. Basically for all rims available today the rule is simple - the wider the rim, the taller the tire. The extremely wide rims that would make the tire less tall do not exist.

  15. #15
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,945
    Not supposed to be a thread about rim widths, but since it's somewhat relevant, here's a few pics to help illustrate what one certain 2.3 tire looks like on a 35mm (28.4mm internal) width rim.




    Not sure if anyone would call it "tall".

    What shape the casing/tire takes when on Easton Havens (source):



    Does it look rounder, with maybe a taller peak (and narrower)?
    Last edited by Varaxis; 12-05-2012 at 03:52 PM.

  16. #16
    Dissolved member
    Reputation: StiHacka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,629
    Yes, rim width will influence the shape of the tire. In another thread posted here, I offered a comparison of a Noby Nic 2.25 on a 19mm wide rim and a 30mm wide rim - the height and roundness differs by several millimeters. But, the differences are not as drastic as your image is suggesting. Tires and rims available today will all fit between the two extremes of 0.5 and 1.0 in your chart. Everything else in the picture is noise. I understand your good intentions but you also said "notice how tire height is lower with wider rims" which is simply an incorrect statement because the rims would have to be wider than 2.5".

  17. #17
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,945
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Yes, rim width will influence the shape of the tire. In another thread posted here, I offered a comparison of a Noby Nic 2.25 on a 19mm wide rim and a 30mm wide rim - the height and roundness differs by several millimeters. But, the differences are not as drastic as your image is suggesting. Tires and rims available today will all fit between the two extremes of 0.5 and 1.0 in your chart. Everything else in the picture is noise. I understand your good intentions but you also said "notice how tire height is lower with wider rims" which is simply an incorrect statement because the rims would have to be wider than 2.5".
    You know you are almost like the type of guy the OP is targeting, except this case deals with rim width vs tire profile. I say you're almost like that type, since you outright deny something with evidence backing it up, without convincing evidence of your own, yet the guy the OP profiled isn't exactly wrong, as a 0.5" to 1" diameter difference might be considered almost the same size or not that much bigger to some, notably when comparing to the difference between 26 and 29er.

    Next time someone whines to you that its not [xxxxx]...

    or that their [xxxxxxx], think of this photo (and then ignore them):


  18. #18
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,945
    To clarify, you are saying that the width between two tire beads in a typical rim is 1/4 of the height of the tire?

  19. #19
    Dissolved member
    Reputation: StiHacka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,629
    Since you are so smart and have a patent to call others whiners, why do not you show us where a 25mm wide rim would be in your chart, and then a 20mm and a 30mm ones? And then show how the 30mm one would result in a less tall tire than the 20mm one? That's why you brought the chart to this discussion in the first place, no? Stop blabbering and show me the money.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    19
    Schwalbe Muddy Mary 26" x 2,35"
    vs.
    Schwalbe Hans Dampf 26" x 650b

  21. #21
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,582
    You typo'ed the hans as 26" x 650B... instead of 650B x 2.35

    Kirk Pacenti when trying to explain WHY make 650B tires was probably who first tried to say they're about 27.5" in diameter to sell them as a in-between option from 26er to 29er. He probably assumed anyone listening/reading what he said would have had the common sense to know that the majority of 26er tires aren't exactly 26" in practice, nor are the majority of 29er tires exactly 29" either. In that assumption, he was very wrong. He should have anticipated dealing with morons in giving his response on how big they are.

    On an early-90s hybrid I converted for my now ex-gf, into a more off-road capable bike, I took advantage of the available frame & fork clearance to fit the widest tires I could. They were bontrager jones XR foldables labeled as 29 x 1.8. Now in practice, inflated diameters were more like 28.3-28.4" as while they were 1.8s in tread width, they were only 1.6 in casing width. If NOT for the 29er movement, we'd still have been calling those tires as 28ers or 700x45Cs. For my current gf, I built up a Niner Air9 with Schwalbe RaRa tires, originally 2.4s front and back on an Easton XC wheelset but when I built her new wheels using Stan's Crest rims, the profile on the tires changed and the back tire grew in inflated width enough to rub the stays and I had to switch to a 2.25 in back.

    On my first personal 29er, a GT Peace 9R multi, it originally came with WTB Weirwolf 2.3 wirebeads on WTB SpeedDisc AM rims. When trying to diet it a year ago, I put on the silver wheelset (of which the karma in my photos is mounted to) with Panaracer Rampage 2.35 foldables and those fit fine also. This spring I built a new wheelset for it using Mavic Tn719 rims and the same tires and then the profile grew in width enough as to make the tire rub the inside of the front derailleur cage when I downshifted to the granny cog.

    I am running Pacenti Quasi-Moto 2.0s on one bike and inflated I believe I measured them out as 27.1-27.2" diameter. But compared to those 26" x 2.35 Nevegals... they weigh HALF A POUND less per tire. Hell my NeoMoto 2.3s are the same weight as those Nevegals for a 15mm increase in diameter (and also of course, an increase in air volume which means I can run lower pressure and pickup even more traction to go along with the longer tire footprint).
    Last edited by DeeEight; 12-06-2012 at 09:18 AM.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,445

    good tire size comparison for 26 and 27.5 wheels

    Quote Originally Posted by Kili@n View Post
    Schwalbe Muddy Mary 26" x 2,35"
    vs.
    Schwalbe Hans Dampf 26" x 650b
    26" MM 2.35 is a great tire to compare to the 27.5" HD 2.35. Thanks for the photo

    Any one have photo of 29 HD and 27.5 HD?
    ...

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    288
    i don't think showing the range of overall diameters with pictures like these is the best way to visually differentiate (potential) rolling performance, as only a percentage of the wheel circumference is engaged. i'm thinking a side profile shot of each wheel at the ground level would make better sense as you can see the relative differences of curvature and how they would (potentially) roll over surfaces differently.

  24. #24
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,024
    I find this excerpt from Bicycling mag to be illustrative and explanatory of the whole Wheel size issue: rim size nude; wheel size with tire mounted on rim. Couldn't find a link, so I took a pic from the page in the mag

    Next time someone whines to you that its not that much bigger...-imageuploadedbytapatalk1354902165.246345.jpg
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,160
    Average size for the 29'er was 28.9

    Well, I hate to keep beating the horse but the new Nobby Nic 2.35" is close to 28" tall and doesn't look crazy huge or out of proportion in any way

    This is the way the tire companies should be moving on at least the bigger 2.3 and above sizes. Go tall. Closes the gap even more on the 29'er and will perhaps shut up some of the nay sayers.
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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