How much experience have you had riding 650B tires and wheels? What are your local conditions that you ride? I find the 650B have better rollover than 26 IMHO, though obviously not a 29er. Personally in my local conditions, I don't like the MK2 2.4's, I find they aren't as sticky on rock ramps and don't offer near the traction in loose conditions, though they do offer better acceleration, rolling, faster steering, and are lighter.
A couple of years. I've done back to back tests of rollover with Ra Ra 2.25's in all sizes on the same hard tail. It is noticeable to a small extent with similar volume tires but not large volume 26" tires. The extra dynamic stabilty and cornering traction by far out way any small rollover or momentum benefits. I'm pretty sure that would also sustain crtical analysis with a few engineering calculations.
I ride varied trails , mainly forrest trails, some similar to Pacific Northwest. Lots of tree roots and very few rocks. In the summer it's loose over hard pack and some trails can get pretty loose with a sandy base.Obviously polar opposite to your trails.
Once again, TK 2.4 is not harsh on the front in comparison to what? I'm comparing trail / light AM tires, not DH tires. It's harsher than the tires I prefer to ride, possibly the exception is the Big Betty. I consider a soft riding tire something like a a Race king 2.2 which is not far off in volume to the TK 2.4 but leagues apart in ride quality. Obviously not a trail tire but the comfort end of the spectrum I prefer at my light weight. I don't need heavy sidewall protection . I'm for a compromise. The TK2.2 or MK2 2.4 are that compromise as a rear tire with something like a Hd on the front.
We obviously ride in totally different conditions and the large gaps in the tread of the TK2.4 obviously hook up well for you in pea gravel etc. Quite the opposite on wet roots . The large gaps don't give much hold on wet tree roots. However they are in general a great rear tire. Just not a great front tire compared to an HD in deep loose over hard[ soil and sand not pea gravel]. In genearl they are just too heavy and harsh for general trail / AM tire when the Hd offers everything it does plus some at a lighter weight. It's obviously got to be near the top of the list if your priority is a tough as nuts tire for rocky conditions.
From memory you didn't like Hd's in particualr the wear. Ever tried pacestar Hd's. IMHO the trailstar is to soft for the small Hd tread blocks in dry and hard pack conditions anyway. Better suited to the larger blocks of the Big Betty.
Hd's are selling like hot cakes. In their wake the Tk 2.4's are in demise. Tk2.2 is still a popular tire, especially on the rear.
If i remember right you did an initial review of Neo 2.3's a few years back and rubbished both 650b rollover and neo 2.3's in general.
Times have changed?
Last edited by gvs_nz; 12-30-2012 at 11:23 AM.
That's why i don't like them at 67 degree and slacker. Great for carving corners but you loose too much agility. Too 29erish.
Originally Posted by rideit
There are too many different comparisons in this thread. If it is the same tire in both sizes then the diameter should be very noticeable with the performance differences that go hand in hand with that. But if we stick to the OP's topic the primary answer is weight. For comparison let's consider my two sets:
Neo-Motos (2.3 F, both a 2.3 and 2.1 R)
Conti Trail Kings, both at 2.4
I run the Neo-Motos for three seasons and the TKs in the winter here in New England. The TKs are black chili, not harsh to me, and grip so well that I have not tried studded tires yet. But the weight penalty is around 3/4 lbs per wheel and when spring comes the acceleration improvement is huge with the lighter tires.
I dream of a 650b tire that grips like a TK (or better) with close to the same weight and diameter of a 2.3 Neo-Moto.
The 2.25" 650B 27.5 HD in Trail star compound. Doesn't have the paddle tread of the TK for tractoring up climbs in the snow. Should easily equal the TK on wet rocks and roots though. And you get that little extra diameter for edging over rocks and roots in climbs. That infamous 650B rollover comes in handy trudging up rocky climbs
Last edited by gvs_nz; 12-30-2012 at 06:02 PM.
Makes me want to try big volume tires on my 26er.
Originally Posted by golden boy
Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun
I have Panaracer Fire Xc Pro tires in both 26 and 27.5. In either diameter, it's a fairly stiff tire. I know the Fire Xc Pro is a dated design at this point but it's still around for a reason.
Originally Posted by RagerXS
For the same trail, I come back from a ride feeling less sore on the 27.5 tires. The 27.5 version grips better on climbs, and has better traction in corners.
Rager, might be worth checking out the 650b Vee Rubber Trail Taker's, apparently they have Pacenti marked on the side walls and appear to be the same pattern as Pacenti Mega Moto's. They weigh around 730g and measure 710mm wheel dia.
Yep, slightly different terrain. I do sometimes get that locally, but it's not as common. Currently we have more snow, so I have been out on my 29er with some uber fat test tires.
Originally Posted by gvs_nz
I do like the HD up front, as it does hook up well and is long lasting, I just prefer a stickier fat one in the rear, so I like the TK2.4 (no 650B though). I love the Big Betty, but I destroy those in a matter of weeks in my local rocky terrain, though they're excellent for that period of time, but die too quick. I have been riding the Neo 2.3 of late since I don't have anything never, and they certainly are durable though not as fat or sticky as I like. I have them on some DL31 rims, which helps somewhat. I find they give a harsh ride since they lack volume, but they're very flickable and fast and tough.
I am waiting on some new HD's, but I wanted to try the Super Gravity version, and Schwalbe haven't sent me a pair as yet.
Thanks for the info, always nice to have a good rapport with a fellow forum rider.
I won't go back to them unless he does a version with a lighter casing and dual compound. The Neo 2.1's with their lighter casing ride smoother so he can squeeze a bit more comfort in to them yet.
Originally Posted by pastajet
The 2.1 would make a good 29er tire if he could keep it about the same weight with dual compound. Relabel it as a 2.2 or 2.25 though . You don't get sales under selling the size of your tires compared to the competition.
Just double checked mine as I note your MK2 is protection which are always smaller than my Racesport version.
Originally Posted by pastajet
Both Black chilli, prestretched and mounted on the same rims at the same presssure.
TK2.4 [casing and tread are same width] and are 0.5mm wider than Mk2 2.4 [ [casing and tread are same width]
TK2.4 casing and tread are both 3.9mm higher than MK2 2.4 casing and tread.[measured above the rim wall]
So they are not a bad option if someone wants a tall tire but doesn't need the extra traction and protection that goes with the extra 280g of the TK2.4. From memory the Xking 2.4 is very similar dimensions as the MK2 2.4.
I have been riding a brand new 26" wheeled full suspension bike for the last few months. Upon reading some magazine articles about this 27.5/650b stuff I decided to go to the garage and measure the (outside-to- outside) diameter of my rear 26" WTB BRONSON 2.3 TCS tire. The measurement was just a few hairs over 27 inches. So I measured the the front 26" WTB WEIRWOLF 2.3 TCS tire and it came in at exactly 27". I have probably ridden a few hundred miles on these tires before this measurement was taken so I have to assume that some of the tread has worn off considering that the little whiskers have disappeared.
I read most of you describing a half inch and an inch difference between most 26 and 27.5 in tires but really that difference would be the radius not the diameter since the axle to tire dimension is the only thing that changes. I may not be that in-tune with the way my bike handles, but I can't help wonder how anyone but maybe a pro would notice a 1/4 to 1/2 difference in tire radius. Still curious about the 27.5 format though.
I am not a pro. However, I can DEFINITELY tell the difference between 27.5 and 26. You can't really go by numbers alone, they are not the whole story. 27.5" wheels ride noticeably different from 26" wheels, but you have to RIDE them to actually feel that difference. Measuring tires and debating on an internet forum don't really do justice to the actual ride qualities of 27.5 wheels. Find a set, go out and ride them on the same trails (for awhile), and THEN you can make some judgements about them. It's hard to make any useful decisions without some actual riding time.
Radius = 1/2 Diameter, so it's apples to apples. The 26 and 27.5 are measurements of diameter, so that's why it's being referred to.
Originally Posted by R-DUB
If a tire on a 26" rim is ~27" tall, then you have to correlate that the exact same tire on a 650B/27.5" rim is going to be around 28-28.5" tall. That's a noticeable difference any way you slice it. It might not be for everyone, but it's obviously for enough people if it's gaining popularity. Comparing different tires on different wheels on different bikes is stupid if someone wants to measure the difference in feel or performance.
Look at it in relation to the ski industry. The key measurement of a ski is the width of the waist and the amount of sidecut a ski has. There are skis of every width from 65mm all the way up to 150mm (or more), and multiple sidecuts exist for every one of those widths. I'm willing to bet that an established skier could tell the difference in performance between most of them. If mountain bikes only have three (for now) wheel sizes and they're all more than 5% different from one another, you can bet that the performance will be quantifiable and noticeable.
Large width 26 inch tyres are normally around 685mm (27ins.), exceptional height 26 inch tyres like the Conti 2.4 TK measure 695mm (27.4ins.). Typical first generation 650b tyres measure 705mm (27.8ins.) and the new generation of fat 650b tyres like Vee Rubber Trail Takers measure 710mm (28 ins.). Potentially 650b tyres could measure up to 720mm (28.4 ins.). So the measured differences between 26 and 650b could be up to 38mm (1.5 ins.) which would definately translate into a significant difference in performance.
Originally Posted by R-DUB
I'd like to see an all mountain/ trail 26 inch tire in a 2.7 to 3 inch width. Kinda like the Surly Krampus 29+ but in the little wheel version. The diameter would end up being close to 27.5 but you would get that extra fat tire goodness. You could build a frame for the fatter tires that could use either 26+ fatties or regular 27.5s.