Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    SamuraiBunnyGuy
    Reputation: longhairmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,391

    so now i know why some of you run a smaller tire in the back

    i was excited to finally get a new cassette and brake rotor for the stans wheelset with 2.5 nevgals that i bought almost 4 months ago. i couldn't wait to finally ride with some huge-ass tires this afternoon. i popped the back wheel in,, and,,, hmmm,, something wasnt right,, it wouldnt turn smoothly... the knobs on the tire are rubbing against the front of the suspension triangle. gdmfingsob!!!

    so i just put my old rear wheel back on and threw a new mountain-king 2.4 on it and it didnt rub. I certainly dont have enough tire-changes to base a comparison upon, but is it just the uber-high profile nevegal knobs that are just incompatable, or are there a lot of frames that simply cant handle any 2.5 tire? i have a rocky mountain altitude carbon, but now i can tell shana i need a 2nd bike so i can use this rear wheel,, since,, um,, you know,, tires arent removable...

  2. #2
    PMP,TAN,LAUNDRY
    Reputation: azdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,924
    The nevegal 2.5's are basically 2.7 tires in any other brand. Cut the side knobs!!!
    Bender to AZDog: I'm not the best person to give advice on not riding!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,907
    2.5 is a pretty big tire for a rear. My AM bike only has a 2.3.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  4. #4
    I love bike!
    Reputation: dsittman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Just depends on the model/manufacturer. I run a 2.35 Speshy Butcher on front which is slightly larger than my 2.5 Maxxis Minnion DHF I run on the rear. The Maxxis runs small and would probably work for your setup on the rear.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AzSuperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    121
    I run a UST Nevegal 2.35 in front and the same tire but 2.1 in rear.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HighTitan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    727
    2.5s for me front and rear! Monster truck'n over all the rock!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,120
    Usually run 2.2-2.3 on the rear wheel. On some tires I have to cut part of the side knobs off.....

  8. #8
    ...
    Reputation: Swmpthng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by longhairmike View Post
    i was excited to finally get a new cassette and brake rotor for the stans wheelset with 2.5 nevgals that i bought almost 4 months ago. i couldn't wait to finally ride with some huge-ass tires this afternoon. i popped the back wheel in,, and,,, hmmm,, something wasnt right,, it wouldnt turn smoothly... the knobs on the tire are rubbing against the front of the suspension triangle. gdmfingsob!!!

    so i just put my old rear wheel back on and threw a new mountain-king 2.4 on it and it didnt rub. I certainly dont have enough tire-changes to base a comparison upon, but is it just the uber-high profile nevegal knobs that are just incompatable, or are there a lot of frames that simply cant handle any 2.5 tire? i have a rocky mountain altitude carbon, but now i can tell shana i need a 2nd bike so i can use this rear wheel,, since,, um,, you know,, tires arent removable...
    Dude, buy a Downhill Bike

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,967
    Most AM bikes will fit 2.5 nevegals ft and back , ---------I love the 2.5 nevegals , ......but I can not pedal the 2.5 in the rear near as well as the 2.35 .

    Thats why most guys with little legs run the 2.35 in the rear , so they can clime everything

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SSdirt29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by kelstr View Post
    Thats why most guys with little legs run the 2.35 in the rear , so they can clime everything
    +1 on that. Lighter rotational weight. As long as I feel like I have enough rubber on dirt for traction climbing on the singlespeed , I'm good. Usually run 2.1 - 2.3. Fatty in the front only ,but I don't ride a lot of Gnar either. I tried a Maxis 2.4 Ardent on the back with low pressure and I felt like I was on a trampoline.

  11. #11
    SamuraiBunnyGuy
    Reputation: longhairmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,391
    power for climbing has never been a problem for me,, its only techy climbs that trip me up.
    im not cutting anything off a tire. just going to wait until i wear out the front nevegal, then swap out the one from the rear. i actually felt pretty confident yesterday with the mountainking2.4 in the back and nevgal in the front. i was having major front sliding on descending switchbacks with the irc trailbears i had on there before. they wore out really fast, and they were probably better suited for gripping topsoil instead of rocksoil

    i was considering getting a firebird or mojoHD for a 2nd bike. not really DH, just the next closest thing without crossing that threshold. actual DH riding is not an option for me. being self-employed, any major injury would shut my business down completely.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stumpy29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by longhairmike View Post
    power for climbing has never been a problem for me,, its only techy climbs that trip me up.
    im not cutting anything off a tire. just going to wait until i wear out the front nevegal, then swap out the one from the rear. i actually felt pretty confident yesterday with the mountainking2.4 in the back and nevgal in the front. i was having major front sliding on descending switchbacks with the irc trailbears i had on there before. they wore out really fast, and they were probably better suited for gripping topsoil instead of rocksoil

    i was considering getting a firebird or mojoHD for a 2nd bike. not really DH, just the next closest thing without crossing that threshold. actual DH riding is not an option for me. being self-employed, any major injury would shut my business down completely.
    PM sent.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    954
    I am a fat tire fan too, and I was going to give the 2.5 Nevegal a tryout. I've run 2.35 Nevegal's front and back before, and they seemed pretty nice. Currently, I run the 2.4 Conti Mountain King in front, which I really like for $26. I got a sidewall cut in the Mountain King after 5 weeks, so I replaced it with a new 2.4 Mountain King. I'm thinking of trying the Pro(tection) version of the 2.4 Mountain King, which is $3 more @Jensen.

    I've got a Maxxis Ardent 2.4 in back now, but it is pretty narrow, measuring only about 2.25-2.3 inches. The Ardent is wearing pretty quickly too. 3/4 of the center knobs have worn down after 1 month of 6 days/week riding. Otherwise, it seems like a fine tire. The thing I noticed about the Ardent is that it looks taller than my Mountain King.

    My Blur LT2 is supposed to be wide enough in back to accept a 2.5 tire. Can you measure the widest part of the 2.5 Nevegal for me, say, inflated to 30lbs?

    Thanks.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,967
    Quote Originally Posted by happyriding View Post
    I am a fat tire fan too, and I was going to give the 2.5 Nevegal a tryout. I've run 2.35 Nevegal's front and back before, and they seemed pretty nice. Currently, I run the 2.4 Conti Mountain King in front, which I really like for $26. I got a sidewall cut in the Mountain King after 5 weeks, so I replaced it with a new 2.4 Mountain King. I'm thinking of trying the Pro(tection) version of the 2.4 Mountain King, which is $3 more @Jensen.

    I've got a Maxxis Ardent 2.4 in back now, but it is pretty narrow, measuring only about 2.25-2.3 inches. The Ardent is wearing pretty quickly too. 3/4 of the center knobs have worn down after 1 month of 6 days/week riding. Otherwise, it seems like a fine tire. The thing I noticed about the Ardent is that it looks taller than my Mountain King.

    My Blur LT2 is supposed to be wide enough in back to accept a 2.5 tire. Can you measure the widest part of the 2.5 Nevegal for me, say, inflated to 30lbs?

    Thanks.
    On my wheels the 2.5 nevegal in 2 5/8" wide at the widest nobs , and it is right at 27.2" tall, the 2.35 nevegal is 2.5" wide and 26.5 " tall , ...I really love the huge tire in the ft -----( I really loved the 2.7 ft and 2.5 rear but I could not pedal everything at one shot ....to hard to pedal.

    My buddy has the new 2012 Stumpjumper carbon EVO ......( really nice bike by the way ) and the 2.2 rear Purgatory is fatter and taller than the 2.35 nevegal and the 2.30 ft Butcher is taller and wider that the 2.5 nevegal .......and way ligher and roll way better also .

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    49
    Bontrager team issue 2.1 rear 2.3 up front both ust love em

Posting Permissions

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