Results 1 to 42 of 42
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860

    2.1 Neomoto vs 2.35 vs 2.25 Racing Ralph. Have you compared tires?

    My 2008 Brodie Mettle fits a 2.1 Neomoto in the rear. I am glad I don't have to go down to a 2.0 quasi moto, since I prefer a bit more volume. In fact, I am hoping I can run the 2.35 Neomoto instead of the 2.1. How much bigger is the 2.35 Neo vs the 2.1? My bike won't fit a 2.25 Racing Ralph 650B. Is it possible the 2.35 Neomoto is inbetween the 2.1 Neo and the 2.25 Racing Ralph? I could only use the 650b Racing Ralph 2.25 if I did some mods on my bike.

    Also, the tire dimensions chart that shiggy has shows the volume being larger with the 2.3 neo vs the 2.1. Is this true? I thought I read that the casings were the same with the Neo's and even the Quasi.

    thanks in advance for any feedback,

    Last edited by morkys; 11-18-2012 at 06:17 AM.

  2. #2
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Kirk says the casings are the same but whether panaracer actually produced them as such would be the question. Also all of shiggys tire data is several years out of date and it doesnt look like he has the time to update the info now that he runs titus.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    So the treads are just bigger on the 2.35? I compared the width of an unmounted Neo 2.1 vs the quasi and they are the same, meaning, the casings are the same. I am just finding that the 2.1 Neo seems like a smaller tire than I expected. It's like it's got slightly less cross sectional volume, size and overall height above the rim than the 2.1 of 26" tire it is replacing. I am trying to go to a tire that is similar in cush as my 26" tire. I guess it's hard to do that when I've barely got any room. I am going to compare with larger 26" tires.

  4. #4
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,780

    Apples to Oranges!

    Quote Originally Posted by morkys View Post
    So the treads are just bigger on the 2.35? I compared the width of an unmounted Neo 2.1 vs the quasi and they are the same, meaning, the casings are the same. I am just finding that the 2.1 Neo seems like a smaller tire than I expected. It's like it's got slightly less cross sectional volume, size and overall height above the rim than the 2.1 of 26" tire it is replacing. I am trying to go to a tire that is similar in cush as my 26" tire. I guess it's hard to do that when I've barely got any room. I am going to compare with larger 26" tires.
    What are you really trying to achieve? I know it's easier to cut to the chase and ask curent but if you've done any search/research on this you'd have some info. You really can't compare an unmounted tire to another. Rim width size, tire compound and tread design come into play. From my personal experience and investigating, the 2.1 Fire XC is the smallest casing/overall height tire. Knobs are a little wider then on the Nev's but fit better being back behind the chain stays (obviously dif in frame model applies). Meaning the Quasi is a big/true 2.0 if you will. Now the Nev's on the other hand aren't as big as they appear. Maybe smaller casing-bigger tread then the Pacenti's that appear to make the difference.

    Point being from what I've seen the RR2.25 won't be coming in under the Neo 2.3 by much if that's what you're looking to hear.
    Last edited by JMac47; 11-17-2012 at 05:23 PM. Reason: typo
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    I was actually hoping the opposite. I was hoping the 2.3 neo is inbetween the 2.1 Neo and the 2.25 Racing Ralph. I am hoping that despite being larger than the 2.1, the 2.3 Neo could fit on my bike. I am looking for the biggest 650B tire that fits my bike.

    I was hoping the 2.3 neo is noticeably slightly bigger than the 2.1 and yet smaller than the 2.25 Racing Ralph. One thing I noticed is that my 2.1 x 26" nev is big compared to older tires I have around like pana smoke and velociraptor 2.1's. I guess I want a tire with the same height off the 650B rim as the 2.1 nev on my 26" rim. Maybe I don't have enough room. You can see pics on the compatible 26'er thread. Maybe for my purposes, for the rear at least, unless I modify the frame, the best I can do is install a larger 26" tire.

    In fact, I am wondering what other tire out there is slightly larger than the 2.1 Neo but smaller than the 2.25 Racing Ralph. If the 2.3 Neo doesn't fit, perhaps something else will.
    Last edited by morkys; 11-18-2012 at 06:19 AM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Does anybody have pictures of the 2.1 Neomoto vs the 2.35 and/or the 2.5 Racing Ralph side by side and/or mounted on a bike showing clearance? Comparisons of other tires?

    Here is the photo I posted in the 26'er compatible thread showing limited amount of room I have left.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2.1 Neomoto vs 2.35 vs 2.25 Racing Ralph. Have you compared tires?-2.1-nevagal-26-vs-2.1-neomoto-650b.jpg  


  7. #7
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,780
    Got it. I guess what I was trying to say was I didn't think the RR was much bigger then the 2.1 Neo.

    I personally don't have a RR or 2.3 Neo, but do have WTB 2.2 Wolverines, Neo 2.1's, Nevs in 2.1's and a 2.35. Thinking the Wolv may be the only bigger tire if you're looking for more volume/lower rr but have to believe its close to the RR in size.

    I have a Wolv and Nev 2.35 on front wheels that I could take pix and send for comparison, later after riding.
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860

    My goal highest volume/cush 650B tire. At least match 2.1 nev 26" unless I mod bike.

    Sure, what the heck. I admit that looking at the fit, there isn't much room, so I doubt I can find a 650B tire much bigger than the 2.1 Neo and still fit in there without mods to the bike. Maybe I am at a dead end in terms of getting a 650B on the rear of my bike with at least as much volume/cush as my 2.1 nevegal 26" (I don't mind the nev as a tire but I find it slow rolling).

    I neglected to measure the height above the rim of the 2.1 Neo vs the Ralph vs my 2.1 nevegal 26". I suspect the 2.1 Neo has the least, the 2.1 Nevegal a bit more and the Ra Ra 650B the most.

    People keep saying that the Pacenti tires are all on the same casing and it's the knobs that make the size different. Wouldn't that mean the tire volumes are identical?

    Also, I notice that the rims/wheels that I look at for 650B are usually around 26 to 28 mm width. I ride xc so 35 mm rims are not necessary. Is there any difference between a 26 and 28 mm rim when it comes to tire fit? Does that 2 mm difference result in a difference in tire height and or width in practice?

    thanks for the feedback,



    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47 View Post
    Got it. I guess what I was trying to say was I didn't think the RR was much bigger then the 2.1 Neo.

    I personally don't have a RR or 2.3 Neo, but do have WTB 2.2 Wolverines, Neo 2.1's, Nevs in 2.1's and a 2.35. Thinking the Wolv may be the only bigger tire if you're looking for more volume/lower rr but have to believe its close to the RR in size.

    I have a Wolv and Nev 2.35 on front wheels that I could take pix and send for comparison, later after riding.
    Last edited by morkys; 11-18-2012 at 08:24 AM.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,967
    What about a Kenda Nevegal 2.1 650b? You won't fit a Neo 2.35 if a RR 2.25 is a no go. I just installed a RR 2.25 in place of a 2.3 Neo and it looks like a size smaller. You really can't compare 26, 27.5 or 29" tires same sizes seem to run different even from the same manufacture.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    The 2.1 nevegal could be used as a temporary option if it has the same or larger casing height as the 2.1 x 26 nevegal. It's not the best rr wise, but it's not too heavy. Also, I think it can be modded to have better rr if I'm not mistaken.

    I could be mistaken comparing the 2.1 x 26 nev with the 2.1 Neo. It may be an illusion and/or I am just being pessimistic. It is possible that the 2.1 Neomoto may actually be as tall as the 2.1 x 26 nevegal. I guess I will have to get a 650B wheel again and compare.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47 View Post
    ...I personally don't have a RR or 2.3 Neo, but do have WTB 2.2 Wolverines, Neo 2.1's, Nevs in 2.1's and a 2.35. Thinking the Wolv may be the only bigger tire if you're looking for more volume/lower rr but have to believe its close to the RR in size...
    If you could get a picture of those two tires on wheels and/or compared to the Neo 2.1, that would go a very long way. The WTB 2.2 could be an option that has as much cush and volume as the 26 x 2.1 nev but is hopefully a bit smaller than the RR 2.25...and I'd like to see where the 2.3 Neo compares to both. The WTB is a nice option bc it's supposed to have ok rr and it's not too heavy.

    Curious about all 650B tires...

    Ro Ro 2.1 and 2.25
    NN 2.25 and 2.35

    The 2.25 and 2.35 Ro Ro, NN or Ra Ra could work as my front tire but not for back. Possibly though, the Ro Ro could work in the back if fits but is larger than the 2.1 x 26 nev in case height cush etc. I am narrowing down my options. Narrowing the field, zoning in, and yet winter is coming and riding dirt will soon be over for a few months.
    Last edited by morkys; 11-18-2012 at 04:45 PM.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,967
    2.2 Wolverine is a HUGE tire - larger than a 2.3 Neo-moto. Of all the 650b tires I have run the Racing Ralph 2.25 650b was the smallest, Neo 2.3 was definitely larger. If a RR won't fit you will probably be limited to the smaller 2.1 sizes.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by keen View Post
    2.2 Wolverine is a HUGE tire - larger than a 2.3 Neo-moto. Of all the 650b tires I have run the Racing Ralph 2.25 650b was the smallest, Neo 2.3 was definitely larger. If a RR won't fit you will probably be limited to the smaller 2.1 sizes.
    Bummer. Ok. Maybe the Rocket Ron 2.1 is a bit bigger than the 2.1 Neo.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    I suppose even if a 2.1 Neomoto 650B tire had slightly less cross-sectional area than a 2.1 x 26" nevegal the 650B tire could feel the same or better in terms of cush because it has the same or larger volume and also has more tire between the rim and ground because of the slightly larger footprint.

    Still, the bigger the 650B I can use, the more options I have.

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by morkys View Post
    Also, I notice that the rims/wheels that I look at for 650B are usually around 26 to 28 mm width. I ride xc so 35 mm rims are not necessary. Is there any difference between a 26 and 28 mm rim when it comes to tire fit? Does that 2 mm difference result in a difference in tire height and or width in practice?
    It will but the difference will not be a drastic one. OTOH, I run a 2.3 Neo on a 17mm inner width rim in the front and a 2.1 Neo on a 22.6mm wide Flow in the rear, and the difference is massive. The 2.1 feels rounder and meatier than the "limp" 2.3 in the front. That said, I am expecting a new Velocity P35 rim to arrive at any moment now.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,967
    Tubed or tubeless ? Rim width ? Want to add cush run a Neo tubeless. I thought the Neo 2.3 felt too stiff running a tube. If you run a wider rim you can increase the volume and increase the foot print.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    So between 24, 26 and 28 mm rims, there will be a difference in the ultimate size of the same tire? I guess it depends also on the internal width of the rim, where the tire seats.

    I am not looking to do tubeless since I'll be swapping around so much over the winter to see what works for me and any mod I have done.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    The neo 2.3 has less cush than the 2.1 as it has a thicker sidewall. The Neo 2.1 is not bad cush for it's volume. Not on par with Geax tires but is smoother riding than the Ra Ra.

    The wider rim will increases the height of the tire. The Crest decreases the height as it lets the sidewall bulge out more.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Ok, so a 24 mm rim won't make the tire higher or wider than the 26 and 28 mm rims? I thought I heard somebody mention that a narrower rim makes the same tire taller and a wider rim makes the same tire wider.

  19. #19
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,780
    Quote Originally Posted by morkys View Post
    Ok, so a 24 mm rim won't make the tire higher or wider than the 26 and 28 mm rims? I thought I heard somebody mention that a narrower rim makes the same tire taller and a wider rim makes the same tire wider.
    Basically a skinnyerr rim rolls the crown of tire more, wider rim flattens it out. Would have to be a significant difference in widths to really see a change in height.

    You should just get a 2.1 Nev and roll with it. A lot of analyzing going on for minimal mm's of cush!
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by morkys View Post
    Ok, so a 24 mm rim won't make the tire higher or wider than the 26 and 28 mm rims? I thought I heard somebody mention that a narrower rim makes the same tire taller and a wider rim makes the same tire wider.
    I used to think that as well. My P35 makes the same tire 1mm taller than a Blunt which is 1mm taller than in a Crest. The tire in P35 is also 2mm wider than in the Blunt with a flatter crown. The tire in the Crest is wider than in a Blunt.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Yeah, I am analyzing it, but it's bc I want the biggest tire I can fit. I am probably going to start out with a 2.1 Neo actually, maybe a 2.1 nev...but eventually I want the biggest tire I can fit in there. It should be an adventure trying to mod my seat stay to accommodate up to a 2.35-2.4 x 650B tire. A 2.35 is probably good enough though.

    I also noticed that the inside width of the various rims are not all exactly what you'd expect. I can't yet find the dimensions of the new American Classis Terrain, All Mountain and Race rims, but, according the Bike Radar, they are:

    Terrain 650
    External 26
    Internal 22

    All Mountain 650
    Ext 28
    Int 24

    Race
    Ext 28
    Int 24

    Oddly, they are all the same as the 26" and 29" rim equivalents, except on the American Classic website, the 26 and 29 All Mountain list the internal rim width as 23 mm which is not the same as the 24 mm that Bike Radar states. Who knows if there really is a difference or if somebody made an error.

    Anyhow, I guess I would have decided between the All Mountain or 650 BXC set which I am guesing should be similar to the DISC TUBELESS rims of 26 and 29 which are 26 mm external and 21 mm internal. The 650BXC are 24 mm external though.

    So I don't know the internal width of the rims that come on the 650 BXC wheel set. Oh well, it is what it is. I guess I just chose a rim/hub/wheel setup based on cost, weight and strength and go with it.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    I used to think that as well. My P35 makes the same tire 1mm taller than a Blunt which is 1mm taller than in a Crest. The tire in P35 is also 2mm wider than in the Blunt with a flatter crown. The tire in the Crest is wider than in a Blunt.
    Ok, so the P35 is obviously 35 mm wide, and the Blunt should be 25 mm wide. How wide are the crest rims?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jetboy23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,224
    Velocity is renaming some rims to span Blunts in 3 sizes. Blunt 35 (35mm), Blunt (28mm), & Blunt SL (25mm). I think the Stan's Crests are 24.4mm.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Any chance a Rocket Ron 2.1 or even a 2.25 would be BIGGER than a Neomoto 2.1 but smaller than a Racing Ralph 2.25 or 2.3 Neo, WTB 2.2 etc?

  25. #25
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    NN 2.25. See 2.25 Nobby Nics

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    I was thinking the 2.1 or even 2.25 Rocket Ron could be slightly larger than the 2.1 neo but smaller than the 2.25 Racing Ralph (searching for the magical as big as possible tire that fits on my bike), but now I am thinking the 2.25 NN may be a better option. Good tread and fast rolling plus not overly heavy.

    I have ordered a cheap set of 650B wheels just for winter tire fit testing. Once the snow flies I won't be riding as much up here in sub zero snowy weather so my efforts will switch to testing fit, modding and tweaking, although...there is an indoor bicycle park not far from me where I could do some test riding later once I get things underway.

    The cheap rims/wheels I bought are 23.6 mm wide with 19 mm internal width, so unfortunately narrower than the 26-28 mm wide rim I intend to eventually use next year. I know we touched on this once before, but does it make sense to use this rim/wheel for comparison and testing tire fit? It shouldn't make that much difference, right? I hope to build a set of wheels using TL-28's for next year once I determine what tires fit and/or mod my bike. I guess in order for me to compare it with the 2.1 Neo and 2.25 Racing Ralph I should buy one myself, that, and a 2.25 Ra Ra. I can potentially use the NN as a hopeful tire that fits, and the Ra Ra as a tire to mod my bike to fit, since it's too big as is.
    Last edited by morkys; 11-30-2012 at 07:37 AM.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by morkys View Post
    Ok, so the P35 is obviously 35 mm wide, and the Blunt should be 25 mm wide. How wide are the crest rims?
    Crests have a specifically designed rim profile to distort the tire.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    As far as cush added to rollover ,the best tall 26" tire is better than the worst small volume 650B tires. I'm still sticking with a 26" 2.4 xking or mk2 rear even on frames that I can fit up to a neo 2.3. Rides smoother and faster. Only thing faster in 650B is a Ra Ra and it doesn't have as much cush. When I have a frame where I can fit a large volume 650B tire on the rear, that's when I'll change over.

  29. #29
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,780

    Interesting take gvs

    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    As far as cush added to rollover ,the best tall 26" tire is better than the worst small volume 650B tires. I'm still sticking with a 26" 2.4 xking or mk2 rear even on frames that I can fit up to a neo 2.3. Rides smoother and faster. Only thing faster in 650B is a Ra Ra and it doesn't have as much cush. When I have a frame where I can fit a large volume 650B tire on the rear, that's when I'll change over.
    I had small 650 tire on rr of my converted KHS fs and thought the same enuff to put my WTB LT2.55 Weirwolf back on. It's apart now but may look into putting back together as a B26r now that I have 140 fork to run on it.
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    I can recommend the racesport Conti 2.4's as a tall narrow fast option. xking for pure speed, MK2 if you need more traction.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    I will compare the bigger 650B tires to the bigger 26" tires and see what I come up with. The "biggest" 26" tire isn't necessarily the best solution as a large 26" tires can have too much squirm and be heavier than a 650B tire that isn't the absolute biggest.

    I think you shouldn't trade down a tire size permanently in order to make a larger 650B wheel work because you are not getting enough benefit. I wouldn't trade a good 2.2-2.4 x 26" tire for the "worst small volume" 650B tire. No use going from the big 2.1 x 26 tire that I have now, or the potential of running a 2.35 x 26" tire down to a 2.0-2.1 x 650B tire. I'd prefer to use a 2.2 to 2.35 tire in whatever wheel size I use. If a 2.25 x 650B tire rides over stuff better than a 2.4 x 26" tire than that may work. On the other hand, if a 2.35 x 26" tire is best, or perhaps a bigger 2.4 x 26, then that may be what I end up with. I am re-starting my exploration over again by making a list of all 650B tires and all the larger 26" tires. I have considered 26" x 2.4 MK II and 2.35 to 2.4 Nobby Nic or Racing Ralph (but Ra Ra isn't made in something that big). Once I list all the 26" and 650B tires I will start see what fits my fork and then see what I can fit out back as is, or with mods.

    I think ultimately, if somebody does like a large 2.4 x 26" tire, then it's highly likely you will like a large 2.25 to 2.35 x 650B tire if it fits your conversion, or, a 2.4 or larger 650B tire on an actual 650B bike.

    In the end, I may end up with just using larger 26" tires on lighter 26" wheels, or a 650B up front, or 650B front and back. Who knows. One day I will want an actual 650B bike that can accept larger tire sizes.
    Last edited by morkys; 12-01-2012 at 10:22 AM.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    I can save you a lot of time and money as I've got a garage full of tires. I've tried everything you have noted just depends on what you expect to get out of 650B.They are a good addition to the front of an older geometry 26" bike to add 29er like stabilty and extra cornering traction. The extra 1/2 degree it slacks the bike out is usually also a bonus.

    If your currently running 2.1 26" tires then I'd suggest nice lightweight high volume 26" tires at low pressure all round as a starting point and then add a 650B front if you need more stabilty and traction.

    My current fav lightweight 26" trail tires are RoRo 2.4 front and xking 2.4 rear.

    PS the racesport xking 2.4 is faster , taller and narrower than the Ra Ra 2.4 .The racesport mk2 2.4 is is faster , similar height and narrower than 2.4 no ni.
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 12-01-2012 at 10:23 AM.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,325
    While I agree with the general notion that going 650b up front has the biggest payoff, I've also noticed an improvement in smoothness and rolling efficiency, as well as markedly better technical ledgy climbing performance with 650b x 2.1-2.3 in the rear compared to larger cross section 26" tires.
    I am stoked to try some of the newer 26 x 2.4 Conti's, however, on the back of my old Mojo hardtail... tall and narrow is the ticket there, and your comments about the Xking and Mk, GVS, confirm my suspicion that those would be good on that bike.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Right now I have a 2.1 x 26" nev rear (big compared to 2.1 smoke/dart 2nd gen and Velociraptors) and a 2.1 Velociraptor front.

    Here are the 26" tires I was looking into:

    Continental Mountian King II 2.4 Protection
    Continental X-King 2.4 Protection

    Schwalbe
    Rocket Ron 2.25 to 2.35
    Racing Ralph 2.25 (there is no other 26" size anymore)
    Nobby Nic 26 x 2.25, 2.35 or 2.4
    Hans Dampf seems too heavy and un-necessary for my riding

    or possibly (but I think too heavy)

    Bontrager XR4 2.35 or;

    Specialized Purgatory
    26" x 2.3; psi 35-65; approx. weight 645g

    For 650B I was looking into similar Schwalbe tires as above, 2.3 Neomoto or WTB 2.2 Wolverine.

    Here is a fuzzy ghotto photo of my Brodie Mettle with 2.25 Racing Ralphs. They rub in the rear, so I would need to mod my bike to make them, or a similar or larger tire fit. Since the seat-stay of my bike is only $125 with sealed bearings, I could pick one up and find somebody to do a minor mod to it to give more room, or, find somebody to make a custom steel seat-stay to replace the one I have now. My bike cost me over $3000 with fork and shock upgrades and a new 650B FS or 29'er FS is over $3K...so making 650B work on this bike could be a less expensive project if done properly.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2.1 Neomoto vs 2.35 vs 2.25 Racing Ralph. Have you compared tires?-08-mettle-650b-wheels.jpg  

    Last edited by morkys; 12-01-2012 at 01:39 PM.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    There's no point in going back to 2.25's in 26" give it 2.4" . There's plenty of fast ones out there like the ones's I've suggested. Why go to protection in the Conti's. You've got thinwall Ra Ra on there now so you obviously don't need them. They are smaller slower and harsher.if you want to go that heavy you can buy the cheap folding conti's but they are heavy aren't as fast or as smooth.

    If you want a cheap very big volume and comfy 26" tire look at 2010/2011 michelin wild gripper 2.25. They have 2.4" volume and very very smooth at low pressures.Too high a pressure and they bounce so you have to get the sweet spot just above squirm. Geax tires are also pretty smooth but with a smaller volume.
    You may be able to tweak your suspension with a larger air can and softer tune. Those older 100mm bikes ramped up a lot at the end of there limited travel.The RT3 squeezes out more travel than the fox shocks if you can't get a larger air sleeve for the fox.You can also run the RT3 with more sag than the equivalent tune fox.

    At some stage your going to have to cut your losses .It's a nice bike but 100mm is 100mm and "Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" comes to mind. Should be plenty of longer travel 26" bikes going cheap if all you want is a little more comfort.I've got all 3 wheel sizes and travel is the most important factor in seated comfort over rough terrain. Rollover has greater effect at speed.29ers make sharp edge hits at speed disappear but pedalling over a tree root on a 29er hard tail is not much different to that on a 26".Tires, frame material and seatposts make more difference.Pedalling through g outs is exactly the same on any wheel size.That's where travel matters. My Soma B side takes all 3 wheel sizes and I have Ra Ra in all 3 sizes so it's easy to make a comparison.

    Second hand 29ers should become cheaper with pressure from 650B. Giant do some good stuff new at lower price range than what your quoting.

    All i can suggest in 650B if your Ra Ra's rub is a Quasimoto , crossmark 2.1 or RO Ro 2.1 or fire xc . The quasi would be my pick. The others will be too small a volume. The other option is trimming the treads on your Ra Ra?
    Last edited by gvs_nz; 12-01-2012 at 10:21 PM.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Correction. I should clarify, the Racing Ralph picture don't roll. They fit on the bike like that, but they won't move. I took a bunch of bicycles to Cycle Solutions in the Beach area of Toronto and they let me try on some 650B wheels on my bikes and frames and an old fork. The wheels pictured aren't mine.

    Like the picture showed earlier in this thread, the 2.1 Neomoto is the smallest tire I'd be willing to try on this bike. No need to use the quasimoto, as I believe it's smaller than the 2.1. I bought two 2.1 Neomoto and one 2.0 Quasi for contingency. Once I fit the 2.1 Nemoto on my bike, I was glad it fit, but was surprised it wasn't much bigger than my 26 x 2.1 Nevegal (which I don't like much anyways).

    I don't ride trails that need particularly long travel, I am just seeing how big I can go wheel and tire wise to get better roll-over and traction. A new wheelset would be lighter than the stock 26" wheels I have, but if 650B doesn't work, I'm not going to invest in a lighter 26" set of wheels. I'd rather save for a 650B bike like the KHS 3500. I am not riding now (its rainy and cold and snow is coming soon up here)...so if anything, over winter, I'll just be fiddling with a cheap 650B wheel set and a few of the tires I think I'd like to run in 650B, and trying to see if it's possible to have somebody either mod my seat stay or have a replacement replicated. I've compared my bikes geometry, including bb height and chainstay length with the KHS 3500 which is a 120 mm FS 650B bike. If I made my effective chainstay length a bit longer, like 1/2" or so, to fit larger 650B tires, the chainstay would still be the same or shorter than the KHS 3500, and my BB height would not be higher either. So if the production KHS 3500 FS 650B bike works with those specs, there's a good chance mine will too. Also, my bike has a steep head angle to begin with, which I like. If it slackens the trail too much, a headset can bring it back in line. If the bike rides crappy, take of the modded part and chalk it up to experiment.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    55
    I have 26 x 2,4 Racing Ralphs on my old singlespeed Kona at the moment. It's a pity they don't make it anymore. The diameter of the wheel is about 26 3/4". I would be interested if somebody has measured the true width of the 27,5 x 2,25 Racing Ralph on a Pacenti TL28 rim to figure if it would fit.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by morkys View Post
    Correction. I should clarify, the Racing Ralph picture don't roll. They fit on the bike like that, but they won't move. I took a bunch of bicycles to Cycle Solutions in the Beach area of Toronto and they let me try on some 650B wheels on my bikes and frames and an old fork. The wheels pictured aren't mine.

    Like the picture showed earlier in this thread, the 2.1 Neomoto is the smallest tire I'd be willing to try on this bike. No need to use the quasimoto, as I believe it's smaller than the 2.1. I bought two 2.1 Neomoto and one 2.0 Quasi for contingency. Once I fit the 2.1 Nemoto on my bike, I was glad it fit, but was surprised it wasn't much bigger than my 26 x 2.1 Nevegal (which I don't like much anyways).

    I don't ride trails that need particularly long travel, I am just seeing how big I can go wheel and tire wise to get better roll-over and traction. A new wheelset would be lighter than the stock 26" wheels I have, but if 650B doesn't work, I'm not going to invest in a lighter 26" set of wheels. I'd rather save for a 650B bike like the KHS 3500. I am not riding now (its rainy and cold and snow is coming soon up here)...so if anything, over winter, I'll just be fiddling with a cheap 650B wheel set and a few of the tires I think I'd like to run in 650B, and trying to see if it's possible to have somebody either mod my seat stay or have a replacement replicated. I've compared my bikes geometry, including bb height and chainstay length with the KHS 3500 which is a 120 mm FS 650B bike. If I made my effective chainstay length a bit longer, like 1/2" or so, to fit larger 650B tires, the chainstay would still be the same or shorter than the KHS 3500, and my BB height would not be higher either. So if the production KHS 3500 FS 650B bike works with those specs, there's a good chance mine will too. Also, my bike has a steep head angle to begin with, which I like. If it slackens the trail too much, a headset can bring it back in line. If the bike rides crappy, take of the modded part and chalk it up to experiment.
    If the Brodie is close to what you want then lengthening the chainstays or custom dropouts is a good idea. Adding 1/2" will also increase your rear wheel travel. You may even get 120mm?.I can do the same to both my meta's by maching up some custom dropouts as they are replaceable. I'd have to test a large volume 650B tire in one of my other bikes first to see if it's worthwhile. Increased frame flex on the Meta's is the downside with the larger wheels. Something you should figure on as well with an older bike and fork..

    Beware , a small volume 650b wheel/ tire does affect trail and handling more than a similar weight large volume 2.4" 26" tire or even slackening the head angle by at least 1 degree.For my older steeds that's a definate plus. Doesn't sound like that's what you want though.
    If your running 17mm rims you can still run 2.4" 26" tires.In fact Geax and michelin tires are comfy because the casing is more flexible and prone to squirm. Geax aren't big volume tires. No need to upgrade wheels. Most tires you can stabilise with only 1 or 2 psi. Frame flex has much more affect on handling than a bit of tire squirm. I usually find tire squirm pressure is very close to the pressure I can impact my rims on tree roots.So a couple of psi above that is fine. I can run tubes at the same low pressure with the big tires so that's not a problem either.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz View Post
    If the Brodie is close to what you want then lengthening the chainstays or custom dropouts is a good idea. Adding 1/2" will also increase your rear wheel travel. You may even get 120mm?.I can do the same to both my meta's by maching up some custom dropouts as they are replaceable. I'd have to test a large volume 650B tire in one of my other bikes first to see if it's worthwhile. Increased frame flex on the Meta's is the downside with the larger wheels. Something you should figure on as well with an older bike and fork..

    Beware , a small volume 650b wheel/ tire does affect trail and handling more than a similar weight large volume 2.4" 26" tire or even slackening the head angle by at least 1 degree.For my older steeds that's a definate plus. Doesn't sound like that's what you want though.
    If your running 17mm rims you can still run 2.4" 26" tires.In fact Geax and michelin tires are comfy because the casing is more flexible and prone to squirm. Geax aren't big volume tires. No need to upgrade wheels. Most tires you can stabilise with only 1 or 2 psi. Frame flex has much more affect on handling than a bit of tire squirm. I usually find tire squirm pressure is very close to the pressure I can impact my rims on tree roots.So a couple of psi above that is fine. I can run tubes at the same low pressure with the big tires so that's not a problem either.
    It's worth exploring if I can modify the seat-stay and/or chain-stay because they are separate parts each worth only $100 each so if the modification goes awry, I won't have destroyed my bicycle in the process. The seat-stay is $125 with bearings and $150 with bearings and drlr hanger. I am pretty sure I could get away with only modifying or replacing the seat-stay part in order to achieve what I need.

    Whatever 26" tire or 650B wheel and tire you put on your 26" bikes front end, it's the increase in height that increases trail. My bike already has a rather steep 70 deg head angle which I like. If the increased trail makes the handling too slow for my liking, an angle adjustable headset, and/or rear shock bushings should allow tweaking to suit. It's true that extending the axle location further back 1/2" may increase travel, but I doubt it'll be much, and honestly I don't want or need a whole lot. I dount I'd put a longer travel fork on this bike anyways, since in combination with 650B wheels, the increase in bb height could start to creep up from the slight to the too much.
    Last edited by morkys; 12-02-2012 at 03:45 PM.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,489
    Larger wheels also increase the trail and they displace the rotating mass to increase the dynamic stabilty of the wheel quite a bit. Believe me a 650B front wheel gives far more stabilty and sluggish handling than just slackening your head angle 1/2 degree. In fact I can hardly notice the difference when riding 650B front and rear as compared to front only. Don't believe the bike mag bolony about 29er rollover with 26" handling. Quite the opposite actually. The major benefit is 29er stability with 26" acceleration, not 29er rollover. you will however notice less change on your steep head angle. The slacker the bike the more the change in stability is accentuated.

  41. #41
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,780
    Well put!
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  42. #42
    jrm
    jrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,610

    If you want "cush"

    look no further then the 2.35 Nobby Nic. Only thing is i dont think its gogin to clear many non 650b stays or fork crowns..but man

Posting Permissions

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