Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Wide rear tire?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kragu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,574

    Wide rear tire?

    I happened onto a good deal on a 2.4 Racing Ralph. I'm currently running a 2.25 RaRa out back and I love it, but its starting to get low on tread, and I'm not sure what to do with the 2.4. I don't really want to put it up front - running a good condition Nobby Nic, and I don't think the RaRa is burly enough for me.

    I know the thing to do is run a skinnier rear than front, but other than a bit more weight, are there any disadvantages to running a fatty like that in the back? I'm assuming its still going to roll well, and I know it'll fit (RIP 9)... What am I missing here? Why don't more people run a fat rear?
    '14 Lenz Lunchbox
    '14 RIP 9
    '12 RIP 9
    '08 GF Ferrous 29
    '02 Trek 4300

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: t0pcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    438
    weight A lighter tire spins up faster and easier the 2.4 probably weighs around 800 grams and a 2.2 5 or 600
    “An adventure is misery and discomfort, relived in the safety of reminiscence.” Marco Polo

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kragu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,574
    The trade off is better cornering and traction downhill, no? I'm not so concerned with climbing efficiency, but would love a little more confidence downhill.
    '14 Lenz Lunchbox
    '14 RIP 9
    '12 RIP 9
    '08 GF Ferrous 29
    '02 Trek 4300

  4. #4
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,860
    Quote Originally Posted by scvkurt03 View Post
    I happened onto a good deal on a 2.4 Racing Ralph. I'm currently running a 2.25 RaRa out back and I love it, but its starting to get low on tread, and I'm not sure what to do with the 2.4. I don't really want to put it up front - running a good condition Nobby Nic, and I don't think the RaRa is burly enough for me.

    I know the thing to do is run a skinnier rear than front, but other than a bit more weight, are there any disadvantages to running a fatty like that in the back? I'm assuming its still going to roll well, and I know it'll fit (RIP 9)... What am I missing here? Why don't more people run a fat rear?
    Usually, frame clearance. Many frames do not have the room for 2.35-2.4" tires, and if they do, a rider will go for a burlier model than the RaRa, such as the Ardent, Hanz Dampf...
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kragu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,574
    So what the f am I supposed to do with that tire!?
    '14 Lenz Lunchbox
    '14 RIP 9
    '12 RIP 9
    '08 GF Ferrous 29
    '02 Trek 4300

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Slow Danger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,241
    I'll be interested to see what people are running out back for a big tire. I like big tires, but I ride rigid, so I use them for the added cush. I've tried the 2.4 Purgatory, and liked it. Right now I have a 2.4 Trail King out back, but it's a heavy, slow rolling tire. Pretty great grip though. I think I'll use a Racing Ralph 2.4 out back in the Summer when the trails are dry. The Ralph seems really light to me.

  7. #7
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,860
    Quote Originally Posted by scvkurt03 View Post
    So what the f am I supposed to do with that tire!?
    Use it! See if you like it. That is all that matters.

    And the RaRa 2.40 is a very light tire for its size.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  8. #8
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,054
    I have owned a Rip9 & liked a big tyre on the rear, Even on my Jet9 RDO I run 2.4 Racing ralph rear & also 2.35 Nobby Nic.

    Go for it fit the 2.4 on the rear.

  9. #9
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by scvkurt03 View Post
    The trade off is better cornering and traction downhill, no? I'm not so concerned with climbing efficiency, but would love a little more confidence downhill.
    Why not a Nobby Nic 2.35 in the front and rear on your RIP?

    That being said, here's my RIP with the Nic 2.35 up front, Ralph 2.4 in the rear...


    RIP with NIC/Ralph combo by ,

    I much prefer the Nic in the rear as well.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rob1035's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    784
    I occassionally run an Ardent 2.4 F&R on my N9. In super rocky/rooty terrain (certain MD trails, WV), I really like the added durability, grip and volume out back. Most of the time though, I try to run something a little lighter/faster out back.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,984
    The only reason, in my eyes, to run a narrower tire on the back is clearance. I use the widest tire I can. The only negative is increased weight. Contrary to popular belief, wider tires roll better than narrower ones of the same design.

    "I know the thing to do is run a skinnier rear than front"

    I think that trend is mostly due to most bike frames having limited space for large volume tires, especially 29" frames.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: socal_jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    595
    I run WTB Dissents 2.5s F&R on my RIP9, don't like skinnies in the back as I find the traction is lacking in several situations(especially with the small knob tires). Don't mind the weight, not racing. Also run Nevs 2.25s F&R on GT peace 9R SS.

  13. #13
    Bro Mountainbiker
    Reputation: Sheepo5669's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,501
    The 2.4 RaRa is only a little bigger than the 2.35 NoNi. I would use it till it wears out (about 3 weeks)
    Raised in a Chicken-Coop by Chickens

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rob1035's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    784
    one thing I forgot to mention that as a singlespeed, I really appreciate the benefits of a faster/lighter and usually smaller rear tire. But again, it really depends on the terrain.

    I'll probably end up with a 2.35 RR on the back at some point...light(ish), big(ish) and fast

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by bluestatevirgin View Post
    I'll be interested to see what people are running out back for a big tire. I like big tires, but I ride rigid, so I use them for the added cush. I've tried the 2.4 Purgatory, and liked it. Right now I have a 2.4 Trail King out back, but it's a heavy, slow rolling tire. Pretty great grip though. I think I'll use a Racing Ralph 2.4 out back in the Summer when the trails are dry. The Ralph seems really light to me.
    I'm running a conti xking 29x2.4 out back and a specialized control purgatory 29x2.4 up front on my WFO. seems to do what I need it to do.

    gnewcomer aka OldMtnGoat

  16. #16
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,400
    Quote Originally Posted by scvkurt03 View Post
    Why don't more people run a fat rear?
    Weight and resistance will be greater.

    However, a wider tire will also have more traction.

    buy it, try it.
    Don't like it on the rear, put it on the front.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Weight and resistance will be greater.

    However, a wider tire will also have more traction.

    buy it, try it.
    Don't like it on the rear, put it on the front.
    Why will resistance be greater?
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kragu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie View Post
    Why will resistance be greater?
    Better grip = more rolling resistance. The more tire you have on the ground, the harder you need to push to get it off the ground.
    '14 Lenz Lunchbox
    '14 RIP 9
    '12 RIP 9
    '08 GF Ferrous 29
    '02 Trek 4300

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Simplemind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    590
    Interesting article on rolling resistance vs width here.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,984
    Quote Originally Posted by scvkurt03 View Post
    Better grip = more rolling resistance. The more tire you have on the ground, the harder you need to push to get it off the ground.
    Are you aware that the footprint (contact patch) area are identical, irrespective of tire size. The footprint area is a function of weight, assuming equal tire pressure. Therefore the wide and narrow tires will have the same area in contact with the ground.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kragu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,574
    From the Schwalbe article Simplemind linked:

    "Which factors affect rolling resistance?

    Tire pressure, tire diameter, tire construction, tire tread and other factors all have an effect on rolling resistance. The higher the tire pressure, the less is tire deformation and thus the rolling resistance.

    Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same tire pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more important, in other words the tire is "less round". Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more."

    So basically, scratch rolling resistance off of the list of the drawbacks. Weight will still be an issue, but the above is interesting to me...
    '14 Lenz Lunchbox
    '14 RIP 9
    '12 RIP 9
    '08 GF Ferrous 29
    '02 Trek 4300

  22. #22
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,691
    I like larger volume rear tires on my hard tail - helps take the edge off. So, either a) build up a hard tail around it, or b) mail it to me.

    PS - Chainlove.com, huh?
    Eat, ride, eat, rest, repeat.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kragu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,574
    I saw it on Chainlove and thought about it, but I wound up getting the tire from my LBS for $20. Just hanging on the wall for the last month or so, so I made them an offer.
    '14 Lenz Lunchbox
    '14 RIP 9
    '12 RIP 9
    '08 GF Ferrous 29
    '02 Trek 4300

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tallsilver1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    179
    I jumped on the Chainlove deal.

    Mounted them up both front & rear on my Gunnar Ruffian, kind of tight on drive side chainstay but should be good as long as I say out of the mud. I will know for sure after a ride on Saturady.

    A few weeks ago I got to demo a Surly Kranpus (29 X 3" tire) and liked it, my thought is it may be Krampus light like, maybe. 75% of the width on a much lighter bike.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Slow Danger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,241
    Which tire has been on chainlove? The Ralph 2.4?

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
  •