Results 1 to 74 of 74
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,771

    Ibis HDr not enough rear clearence

    I have come across these pictures with HDr and schwalbe 650b HD 2.35 tire combo...
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  2. #2
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232

    Yup, looks like the HD 2.35 is a bit too tight...

    ...and it would be nice if there was more room.

    But like it clearly says on the Ibis web site:

    "Depending on brand and depth of knobs, most 650b tires up to 2.35″ will fit the Mojo HDR. We've found that different tire manufacturers seem to use different calibrations on their rulers, so it could be that there are some 2.35" tires that don't fit."

    And...

    "Up to 2.35" rear tire depending on brand and height of cornering knobs"
    - -benja- -

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,771

    Re: Ibis HDr not enough rear clearence

    I agree with the statement.
    The problem is there is 0 clearance with these particular tires and it makes me wonder how much clearance will be left with other not so big 2.35 tires, not too much I assume...
    Don't get me wrong, this bike is really nice, but at the same time full of compromises.
    It is just too heavy for a 130mm carbon trail bike. 147mm option is not ready out of the box and requires modding. Plus the inadequate tire clearance.
    I was excited about this bike at first, not so much anymore...

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    617

    Ibis HDr not enough rear clearence

    Yeah, what a scam the HDR has been. Don't get me wrong, my HD has been AWESOME, in its fourth season now and Ibis CS has been stellar. But this revision just sets back a totally new bike without a lot of proper change from the original. Look at the build and presumably the numbers they got from using the Pacenti tires, some of the shortest 650b tires out there to make it look 'good'.

    Sorry Ibis but my next bike, which I'm ready for now, will not be another Ibis.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,054
    I have a feeling that ibis was working on the HDR before 650 really started to take off so they put it out anyway. The updates to the hd are nice and its still at the top of the heap for 26" bikes. But I agree that it would be nice to see a more dedicated 27.5.

  6. #6
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,428
    Wide rims and lower pressure for the tires helps somewhat, but all of Ibis's bikes have tire fitting issues. Including big fat 650B tires on the HD and 29er on the Ripley. My paint and some carbon is gone on the yoke of my HD's rear triangle. Ibis told me that the carbon is pretty thick back there. Big bummer.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Yes.....and should we be running big fat tires on a 29er or a 130mm 650b? More clearance would probably mean longer stays or less strength.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dibbs_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,059
    HDR needed to be longer travel, stealth dropper post cable routing, internal cable routing, lower, more tire clearance, a smidge slacker...

    but alas....

    To be fair it's not just Ibis, I've seen many other manufacturer efforts in the flesh and have laughed at tire clearance etc..

    I'll not look at 650b for a couple more years now.

    My HD with 2.4 Rubber Queens' on (crazy high tires) is basically 650b.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,969
    Problem is that Conti 2.4's rub the seat tube on a lot of the HD's as well. Pretty much is what it is right now. I think that once Ibis goes to the latest version of DW with shorter links we will see the long term solution. My gut tells me the HD-R will be fairly short lived in lineup and 12 months from now there will be a 150+ travel 275 bike available along with a light weight 130 travel bike.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dibbs_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,059
    Luckily 2.4 RQ's don't rub on my MKII HD.

    But yeah I agree, I think HD-R is a bit of a stop gap. Few more seasons in my HD, can't fault the bike.

    Hopefully by then Ibis will have a proper 650b bike, although wheel size doesn't bother me - I'd just like a stealth port and slightly lower and slacker.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Problem is that Conti 2.4's rub the seat tube on a lot of the HD's as well. Pretty much is what it is right now. I think that once Ibis goes to the latest version of DW with shorter links we will see the long term solution. My gut tells me the HD-R will be fairly short lived in lineup and 12 months from now there will be a 150+ travel 275 bike available along with a light weight 130 travel bike.
    +1 - the HDR seems like a stop gap measure to get a foot in the 650B door. I had Ibis at the top of my list for a new MTB, but they got scratched when I saw the HDR specs.

    Having said that I'm sure Ibis will come out with 150mm travel 650B bike that can take a full range of tires and I'm sure it will be a great bike. I don't know if I'd hold my breathe for next year, but sooner or later that's a move that will happen.

    I've got a lot of positive stoke for Ibis as a company. I'll just wait until I'm ready to get my next next mountain bike to taste the Kool Aid.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    627
    Anyone have a SUCCESS story to share about HDR 650 tire clearance?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,969
    As long as you stick to 2.2 tires you will be fine. There is also a 2.25 Hans Dampf in 275 available which fits fine. Plenty of clearance and no issues. Most people do not need to run such large rear tires, but it is really nice to have the option when it is necessary.

  14. #14
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Dibbs_ View Post
    ...

    My HD with 2.4 Rubber Queens' on (crazy high tires) is basically 650b.
    You should see how monster the TK 2.4x27.5 are. When you put them into the rear of an HD the tire hardly even moves.

  15. #15
    _____
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    344
    I have a 1st gen HD 26" and I wish I could run smaller tires but I've destroyed a set of Flows running 2.3s on the abundant square rocks here in Phoenix. I'm protecting my rims with a massively heavy, 1100 gram, Trail King 2.4. Pedaling such a heavy tire is like running with weights around my ankles. At 6'5 I would surely benefit from 650B wheels and I was planning on getting the retrofit swing arm, but if I can't run a large volume tire what's the point?

    On paper the new Mach 6 looks like a perfect bike but it's just so d@mn ugly! I hope Ibis is feverishly working on an all new answer to the Mach 6. An elegant 650b replacement for the HD that can run big tires.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    What is the point of a new rear triangle that still can't fit standard all mountain tires?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    455
    Seems to me 2.35" is a little on the large side of standard. No? It's supposed to be more of a trail bike than full-on all mtn. I believe...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Skelldify View Post
    Seems to me 2.35" is a little on the large side of standard. No? It's supposed to be more of a trail bike than full-on all mtn. I believe...
    I wouldn't buy a trail bike that couldn't fit a tire like a 2.35 HD in the rear.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,969
    There are certain places like Phoenix where you do really need large volume tires or you have to run very high pressures. Higher pressures make a big difference in traction and small bump compliance so it is less than ideal.

  20. #20
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    As long as you stick to 2.2 tires you will be fine. There is also a 2.25 Hans Dampf in 275 available which fits fine. Plenty of clearance and no issues. Most people do not need to run such large rear tires, but it is really nice to have the option when it is necessary.
    From what I have seen or read, most of the 2.2 tires are a no-go or a very tight fit in the HD because they are tall - Wild Grip'r 2.2 is a no go (I lost a few carbon layers in the yoke), Ardent 2.2 is reportedly quite tall, too, Honey Badger 2.2 is even taller. Hans Dampf 2.25 SS fits but if you ride in rocks, you may not get more than 300 miles out of it (my experience). Nobby Nic 2.25 is a joke of a tire for the HD. What is left? Neo Moto 2.3, Nevegal 2.1 and possibly 2.3. Maybe some of the new smaller Hutchinson tires. We were told the HD-R has more tire clearance than HD but is it enough for at least the 2.2 Honey Badger and Ardent on wide rims?

  21. #21
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,273
    Part of the dilemma here is that -- despite all the hype -- 27.5 has a middling tire selection at best, so there just isn't a lot of choice out there. I get that many may be frustrated that their tire of choice doesn't fit in the rear tri, but the industry needs to settle down on what is an "acceptable" dimension for particular tire categories so that bike companies have something to design towards. For what it's worth, I've had great luck with the neomoto 2.3 on my HD, in rocky NorCal Tahoe conditions. About .25" clear.
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    I think the bottom line is that on anything other than an XC bike, having significant tire restrictions is a tough pill to swallow.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    Uhhh I don't get it. I barely run 2.2's for XC rides let alone normal trail riding.
    My "Standard" tyre is a 2.5 single ply exo Minion.
    I am starting to get the feeling that the HDR is a little under cooked.
    Looks like too many corners cut to fit 650B - travel and tyre clearance being key.
    Just as well that I am loving the stock HD and maybe there will be an HDRR (extra R for "revised!")

  24. #24
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232

    Ibis HDr not enough rear clearence

    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Nobby Nic 2.25 is a joke of a tire for the HD.
    Has anyone run a NN 2.25 on the HDR (not HD at 27.5) and can confirm that it doesn't fit? 2.35 NN I would expect to be about as bad as the HD 2.35, but I'll be bummed if the 2.25 NN doesn't fit...
    - -benja- -

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    107
    Anyone out there know if a high roller II will fit on the rear(27.5)? should be comparable to the hans, no?
    Last edited by recleaver; 08-18-2013 at 03:02 PM.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,189
    HR 2 2.30 fits my HD with tons of room. 2.5 Minion DHF fit too.
    You guys telling me that a 2.2 Nobby Nic doesn't fit? You're fecking kidding right? If so I am astonished that they let this sled out into the public. Sorry Ibis but it has to be said and I am a massive fan of what you guys do

  27. #27
    Weapon of Choice
    Reputation: Iceman69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    785
    My 1st gen HD worked fine with Cont TK 2.2 and Specy Butcher 2.3 in the rear with no issues. The Continental TK although listed as 2.2 is massive for its stated size as everyone probably knows by now.
    I thought the "new" HD-r swingarm was to allow even more tire clearance then before? Are the previous tire fitting issues limited to the 650b configurations?

    Super Unknown

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brankulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,421
    Quote Originally Posted by nzl62 View Post
    HR 2 2.30 fits my HD with tons of room. 2.5 Minion DHF fit too.
    You guys telling me that a 2.2 Nobby Nic doesn't fit? You're fecking kidding right? If so I am astonished that they let this sled out into the public. Sorry Ibis but it has to be said and I am a massive fan of what you guys do
    are you talking 26" or 650b tires?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,422
    Quote Originally Posted by benja55 View Post
    Has anyone run a NN 2.25 on the HDR (not HD at 27.5) and can confirm that it doesn't fit? 2.35 NN I would expect to be about as bad as the HD 2.35, but I'll be bummed if the 2.25 NN doesn't fit...
    From Colin at Ibis who has fitted a number of different 650b tires to the HDR:

    "A knobby knock fits fine, as do most 2.35's, the Hans Dampf just isn't actually a 2.35."

    I forget the actual measurement of the Hans Dampf, but I think it's closer to 2.5". There's no truth to the sidewall markings on some tires, they are off hugely in both directions, both smaller and larger than marked.
    Most 2.35s x 650b fit the HDR. The Hans Dampf 2.35 is much larger than marked and doesn't fit. Hope this helps answer the question.

    H

  30. #30
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by benja55 View Post
    Has anyone run a NN 2.25 on the HDR (not HD at 27.5) and can confirm that it doesn't fit? 2.35 NN I would expect to be about as bad as the HD 2.35, but I'll be bummed if the 2.25 NN doesn't fit...
    The NN 2.25 fits just fine in the HD, but it is just a poor tire for AM IMHO. It has paper thin sidewalls and I could not get it work tubeless - during every ride, it would spawn a new hole in a sidewall to leak all air. YMMV but I do not think I am alone who has massive issues with it. The Hans Dampf 2.25 SS is a much better choice.

  31. #31
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232

    Ibis HDr not enough rear clearence

    Quote Originally Posted by hanssc View Post
    "A knobby knock fits fine, as do most 2.35's, the Hans Dampf just isn't actually a 2.35."

    I forget the actual measurement of the Hans Dampf, but I think it's closer to 2.5". There's no truth to the sidewall markings on some tires, they are off hugely in both directions, both smaller and larger than marked.
    Much appreciated Hans.

    And I agree, the lack of consistency with tire measurements is bizarre. For an industry that loves new standards, you'd think tires would be an area where some legitimate standardization would be easy to come by. Easier said then done I suppose.
    - -benja- -

  32. #32
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232

    Ibis HDr not enough rear clearence

    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    has paper thin sidewalls and I could not get it work tubeless - during every ride, it would spawn a new hole in a sidewall to leak all air. YMMV but I do not think I am alone who has massive issues with it.
    Weird, I ran NN's tubeless for a year and a half on my HD w/o a single issue, burp, flat or leak. I'm not sure which flavor but I don't think they were the SS walls.

    I've never tried Hans D's only because I've had such a good time with the NN's
    - -benja- -

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    My tubeless experience with a range of Schwalbe tires was been flawless, including HD (SS), NN (SS), and RaRa (non-SS).

    The snakeskin versions I've used hold air indefinitely without sealant on Stan's and light-bicycle carbon rims.

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    My tubeless experience with a range of Schwalbe tires was been flawless, including HD (SS), NN (SS), and RaRa (non-SS).

    The snakeskin versions I've used hold air indefinitely without sealant on Stan's and light-bicycle carbon rims.
    Like I've said, your mileage may vary. There is quite a bit of difference between SS and plain versions of NN and the SS is not available in 2.25, only in 2.35 (which won't fit in the Mojo HD). A 570g NN 2.25 may be great for XC but I doubt it will shine on a long legged trail bike.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    I know not everyone will agree with me. But honestly for "most" people you don't need a monster truck tire in the rear.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody View Post
    I know not everyone will agree with me. But honestly for "most" people you don't need a monster truck tire in the rear.
    Depends entirely where you live and where you travel to for MTB trips.

    Unless you can afford multiple high end FS bikes it's nice to be able to run a wide range of tires so you can adapt the bike to the conditions you are riding in.

    If I am going to pull the trigger on an expensive MTB I'm going to make sure I can run wide rubber. If not I'll look at other options.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody View Post
    I know not everyone will agree with me. But honestly for "most" people you don't need a monster truck tire in the rear.
    "Most" people don't need full suspension. "Most" people don't need 5" of travel. "Most" people don't need a carbon frame. "Most" people don't need fancy dual link suspensions. "Most" people don't need chain guides. "Most" people don't need adjustable suspension components. "Most" people don't need hydraulic disc brakes. Etc. I think these kinds of arguments are silly.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dibbs_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,059
    I think you're missing the point.

    And yes people won't agree with you. It's about choice... which is very limited in this case.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    Every bike has its pros/cons. Rear tire size is the least of my concerns personally. If it can fit an average to smaller 2.3 thats good enough. I know there are a lot of guys running huge tires with "low air pressure" and extra "plush" suspension that "uses all of the travel". But honestly while that feels nice n squishy its not really the ideal setup. If you need a huge tire to not dent your rim then try adding a few extra psi, its really not the end of the world. If you're that picky about tire choice then yeah maybe you don't want this bike. I just think its kind of lame to go on a flame-bash on the entire bike and the company just because it doesn't fit a big rear tire. Typical behavior from onliner's who care more about parts-spec then actually just riding the thing. Its not like the bike only fits a 2.1 or something.

    On the other hand I can appreciate the start of this thread and the awareness it makes on tire selection. Just think people are getting too worked up over it.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: odin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    191
    The setup on that bike is with the new I9 Enduro rims the ID on those is 26mm which is huge,add to that the Hans Dampf and you get a bigger then "Normal / Standard " size set up, I think that's part of the problem on an already Tight fitment.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,422
    We measured a Hans Dampf "2.35"" at 2.48". So it's close to a 2.5 not a 2.35. Again, most 2.35s x 650B fit the HDR.
    H

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brankulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody View Post
    I know not everyone will agree with me. But honestly for "most" people you don't need a monster truck tire in the rear.
    i live in co front range and run neomoto 2.3 in rear. i never needed bigger tire. there are tons of rocks and chunky sections here. its just fine. but i could see heavier riders might need bigger tire.

  43. #43
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232

    What you ride VS What you think you need...

    Quote Originally Posted by Yody View Post
    Every bike has its pros/cons. Rear tire size is the least of my concerns personally. If it can fit an average to smaller 2.3 thats good enough. I know there are a lot of guys running huge tires with "low air pressure" and extra "plush" suspension that "uses all of the travel". But honestly while that feels nice n squishy its not really the ideal setup.
    I think that nails it. I'd only add that there are a lot of options for tough tires in the 2.25-2.35 size range, with SS sidewalls etc.

    Ride what works for you, but if you really, truly must have a tire that's basically a 2.5" (the HansD) on the HD-R 650b, then it's not really going to work.

    If that's the determining factor on the bike, then move along. Or set up your HDR with 26" mega rubber in addition to 650b. That's what I'm gonna do with mine.
    - -benja- -

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,767
    After spending quite a bit of time on the 26" / 160mm version of the HDR, I can't imagine running 650b would be any funner Actually was considering getting some 650b bits so I could switch back and forth, but no longer this bike simply rules in the 26" version
    Go get that KOM "You Deserve" - http://www.digitalepo.com/index.php

  45. #45
    I quit e-MTBR
    Reputation: OldManBike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,151
    On my converted HD with a 160 shimmed rear shock, I've been running a 650b 2.25 SS Hans for weeks now without so much as a paint scratch on the rear triangle.

    I think the bottom line here is that if your reason for trading up from a converted HD to an HDR is to hugely expand range of wide rear tires you can run, you're likely to be disappointed. For some riders, there are enough other good reasons to justify the switch. For others, its not worth it even though they'd buy the HDR instead of the HD if they were starting over now.

    The fact that the HDR is an incremental improvement over the converted HD, not a revolutionary one, doesn't make me angry at Ibis. But when the HDR was announced and Ibis said it fit most 2.35 tires, I assumed that meant a Hans Dampf 2.35, and if I'd bought one on that assumption I'd be bummed about it now. Ibis can preserve the phenomenal loyalty they've built by being clearer with those kind of statements going forward.
    Last edited by OldManBike; 08-20-2013 at 12:59 PM.

  46. #46
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232
    Quote Originally Posted by OldManBike View Post
    The fact that the HDR is an incremental improvement over the converted HD, not a revolutionary one, doesn't make me angry at Ibis.
    I think that's a key point: The HD-R is to the HD as the SL-R was to the SL: an incremental improvement.

    Ibis doesn't do model years and they don't treat their lineups the same way most larger companies do (from what I can tell). The Ripley is a New Bike. The HD-R is a significant rev of the HD, which to me is just fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldManBike View Post
    But when the HDR was announced and Ibis said it fit most 2.35 tires, I assumed that meant a Hans Dampf 2.35, and if I'd bought one on that assumption I'd be bummed about it now.
    That's the thing, certain tires have a huge following (funny but true) and for those fans of those specific tires, "2.35" means the HansD definition of 2.35, not the Spesh or Conti or Maxxis definition.... And thus we bend reality to suit ourselves...

    The tire thing is so weird. I've got Spesh rubber on my 29'er HT, running "2.1" on the back and "2.3" on the front, and visually I honestly cannot tell that there is a size difference. I mean, I can see it, but it's tiny. Random anecdote, but jezus I wish there was some consistency to rubber.
    - -benja- -

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    97
    2011 HD and arch ex: ardent 2.25 fits with plenty of room, 2.35 Nobby Nic fits with a few mm (too big of tire for me anyway). 2.25 Hans Dampf fits with plenty of room, as does Racing Ralf 2.25.

    I'm not sure what people want out of a 130mm 650b ibis. I know I wanted a faster rolling version of my HD140. Short travel, fast rolling light Enduro racer (yes I do those) for smoother tracks. I personally want decent rubber, but not huge. I think hans dampf 2.25 front, and an equivalent on the rear is ideal. For the Enduros on the Vancouver North Shore where it is "quite steep, chundery, and wet", I run my mojo HD in 160 front and rear, with real rubber on 26". Funny how 26" and 29" hit the podium regularly there this year, no 650b even close. No replacement for displacement I guess:-)

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    100

    Ibis HDr not enough rear clearence

    Just loaded some new rubber into my new HDR. Schwalbe HD 2.25 on Novatec Diablo (23mm internal width) and plenty of clearance for me. The Hans 2.35 up front is impressively meaty considering the extra "+0.10 inches". Not the best picture but I figure people are still wanting to see multiple configurations before buying.

    Ibis HDr not enough rear clearence-image.jpg

    Upon first hearing about the issues with 2.35 HD in rear, I was honestly kind of bummed. But I started to realize that I was fixating on a lot of numbers that I thought were "needed" like rear tire width, rim width, travel, geo, etc..

    After finally seeing and holding the bike and tires, I suspect that 2.25 HD is going to be perfect for my trails, weight, etc. Time to test!

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dibbs_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,059
    pic doesn't work

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    A decent sized rear tire (as in not a huge one) will roll faster, pick up speed faster, likely be lighter, stronger casing, paired with a bigger front will slack the bike out a hair, and most importantly give you a more connected feel to the bike (casing won't flex as much). Yes you cannot run as low air pressure and the rear suspension will feel fractionally harsher but I prefer a big chunky front and a medium sized rear, except on a woman, lol, I prefer reverse.

  51. #51
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,232

    Diff Strokes, Diff Folks

    Quote Originally Posted by Yody View Post
    A decent sized rear tire (as in not a huge one) will roll faster, pick up speed faster, likely be lighter, stronger casing, paired with a bigger front will slack the bike out a hair, and most importantly give you a more connected feel to the bike (casing won't flex as much).
    Yeah, that's about how I feel about it too. I've never been a real DH/Gravity person. If I'm coming down, it's because I rode UP (mostly! ) and I want both my bike and my tires to suit me well up and down.

    On my HD, I've had 2.25 NN's for a looong time. Love them. Funny thing was, I thought I had a 2.35 in the front, until recently I was doing some work on the bike and realized that I've got 2.25 on both. Once I put them on the bike I never really bothered to think about the size, just liked the ride.

    Needless to say, I've loved the bike and the tires, but want to try a bigger tire in front.

    More importantly is knowing WTF you're doing with tire pressure and tubeless setup. It's taken me a long time to really hone in on the pressures that work for me in different conditions. And it's still a process.

    I carry one of those SKF ( I think that's the brand) digital gauges (Xmas gift from the Mrs; it's a goody!) and I try to check it often before rides.
    - -benja- -

  52. #52
    I quit e-MTBR
    Reputation: OldManBike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,151
    The 650b Hans Dampf is about 2.35" wide at the widest part of the casing and about 2.48" wide at the widest part of the knobs. So far as I know, there's no industry consensus about whether calling that a 2.35 tire is right or not. Obviously, that makes it more difficult for bike companies like Ibis to communicate to their customers about what size tires fit their frames.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by OldManBike View Post
    Obviously, that makes it more difficult for bike companies like Ibis to communicate to their customers about what size tires fit their frames.
    It's a challenge for sure. One option is to provide a diameter and width measurement that fits in the bike so people can measure tire/rim combos they are interested in. You could also provide a list of common tires that were tested in the bike.

    Between the two it would be much easier to determine what tires the bike can handle without the issues of some 2.35" tires being closer to a 2.5" tire or some being more like a 2.2" tire.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  54. #54
    aka dan51
    Reputation: d-bug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    It's a challenge for sure. One option is to provide a diameter and width measurement that fits in the bike so people can measure tire/rim combos they are interested in. You could also provide a list of common tires that were tested in the bike.

    Between the two it would be much easier to determine what tires the bike can handle without the issues of some 2.35" tires being closer to a 2.5" tire or some being more like a 2.2" tire.
    That thread was started 3 years ago, and eventually it faded away.
    Tires that fit the Mojo HD

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by d-bug View Post
    That thread was started 3 years ago, and eventually it faded away.
    Tires that fit the Mojo HD
    That data should be posted to the bike's product page on the Ibis website just like HT angle, BB height, etc...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brankulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,421
    and there is also this thread on 650b tires if someone is considering conversion. i use it as a guide when i want to get different tires that i currently run. based on the the fact that my current neomoto 2.3 rear and trailtaker 2.4 front fit with enough clearance i can sort of determine what will and will not fit. would like to see it updated with hr2 and trail king tires

  57. #57
    I quit e-MTBR
    Reputation: OldManBike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    That data should be posted to the bike's product page on the Ibis website just like HT angle, BB height, etc...
    I respectfully disagree. There's no objective, one-size-fits-all way to decide if a tire fits a frame or not. A tire may be fine for the person who always rides dry dirt but way too big for someone else who rides in sticky mud or where rocks get caught in the knobs. And rim width adds further variation. It doesn't make sense for Ibis to stick their neck out and make pronouncements about what fits or doesn't and get stuck with more warranty liability. And MTBR can do that job better than Ibis can anyway.

    I think the better approach would be for manufacturers to start including rear yoke max width and depth numbers with geo specs.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,915
    Quote Originally Posted by OldManBike View Post
    I respectfully disagree. There's no objective, one-size-fits-all way to decide if a tire fits a frame or not. A tire may be fine for the person who always rides dry dirt but way too big for someone else who rides in sticky mud or where rocks get caught in the knobs. And rim width adds further variation. It doesn't make sense for Ibis to stick their neck out and make pronouncements about what fits or doesn't and get stuck with more warranty liability. And MTBR can do that job better than Ibis can anyway.
    Ibis is doing this anyways by saying a 2.35" tire fits for example and not really defining what a 2.35" means. The result is a bunch of confusion and some unhappy customers.

    By test fitting some of the popular tires on a popular rim and ensuring there is adequate clearance Ibis can reduce the uncertainty of tire clearance for most people. A manufacturer is always going to conservative and leave room for rocks/mud/etc.. If a customer wants to push the envelope and run tires with less clearance so be it.

    It just makes more sense to me for this testing to happen at the manufacturer and to have the data released with the bike than to have the same data posted in dribs and drabs by customers post-purchase.

    Ibis has had to address the issue multiple time just in this one thread. That effort could be reduced and optimized by putting the info on the bike's product page where folks will have an easier time finding it.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldManBike View Post
    I think the better approach would be for manufacturers to start including rear yoke max width and depth numbers with geo specs.
    Sure...I said essentially the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    One option is to provide a diameter and width measurement that fits in the bike so people can measure tire/rim combos they are interested in.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  59. #59
    I quit e-MTBR
    Reputation: OldManBike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,151
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Ibis is doing this anyways by saying a 2.35" tire fits for example and not really defining what a 2.35" means. The result is a bunch of confusion and some unhappy customers.
    Yes, I agree.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: digitalhippie13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Yody View Post
    A decent sized rear tire (as in not a huge one) will roll faster, pick up speed faster, likely be lighter, stronger casing, paired with a bigger front will slack the bike out a hair, and most importantly give you a more connected feel to the bike (casing won't flex as much). Yes you cannot run as low air pressure and the rear suspension will feel fractionally harsher but I prefer a big chunky front and a medium sized rear, except on a woman, lol, I prefer reverse.
    hehe yeah +1 all that

    much prefer the feel of a big front tire/medium sized rear tire combo.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mazspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,058
    Does a 130/150mm bike need a bigger tire than a 2.35??
    If this was a DH bike I could aee the issue, but this is a med travel frame. Are people stupid? I have a 2.30 on my 160 HD and it holds me back a bit. I will be running a 2.20 next. This is on a higher travel bike than the HDR. People complain but have no idea what their talking about. People look at geo numbers and cry about what they dont have, but then they ride it and its all wrong for them.
    Last edited by mazspeed; 08-24-2013 at 04:59 PM.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by mazspeed View Post
    Does a 130/150mm bike need a bigger tire than a 2.35??
    If this was a DH bike I could aee the issue, but this is a med travel frame. Are people stupid? I have a 2.30 on my 160 HD and it holds me back a bit. I will be running a 2.20 next. This is on a higher travel bike than the HDR. People complain but have no idea what their talking about. People look at geo numbers and cry about what they dont have, but then they ride it and its all wrong for them. If you need a bigger tire than on a HDR, you're doing something wrong.
    I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. Ever wondered why people who ride rigid like really big tires? There's simply no correlation WHATSOEVER between how much travel your bike has and the "right size tire" to run on it.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    102
    I am runnin the HDR (160) with 26 inch wheels. Loads of clearance. Using a Nic 2.25 on the rear and a Hans D 2.35 in front. I realize that everyone has their own tires preference but a decent 2.25 for the rear should work fine for most terrains.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mazspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. Ever wondered why people who ride rigid like really big tires? There's simply no correlation WHATSOEVER between how much travel your bike has and the "right size tire" to run on it.
    Ahh yes your correct, so the CC guys are running 2.35's and the downhillers are running 2.1's. Makes total sense. If you compare a hard tail or fat tire bike to an HDR, you should stop posting here. Sorry but Ill listen to the experts who ride and race before you.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mazspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by digitalhippie13 View Post
    hehe yeah +1 all that

    much prefer the feel of a big front tire/medium sized rear tire combo.
    Exactly.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by mazspeed View Post
    Ahh yes your correct, so the CC guys are running 2.35's and the downhillers are running 2.1's. Makes total sense. If you compare a hard tail or fat tire bike to an HDR, you should stop posting here. Sorry but Ill listen to the experts who ride and race before you.
    Because we are all XC racers or DH racers. Your comments about tire size are completely ignorant. But feel free to keep listening to those experts.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mazspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Because we are all XC racers or DH racers. Your comments about tire size are completely ignorant. But feel free to keep listening to those experts.
    Maybe you should read the posts in this thread alone. Lopes was asked on IG if big tire clearence hurts the HDR and he said it was a non issue. Meaning nobody should need that big of a tire on this frame. Now again, since he is a professional who helped develop this frame and you're clearly not a pro, I would listen to him over you everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by mazspeed View Post
    Maybe you should read the posts in this thread alone. Lopes was asked on IG if big tire clearence hurts the HDR and he said it was a non issue. Meaning nobody should need that big of a tire on this frame. Now again, since he is a professional who helped develop this frame and you're clearly not a pro, I would listen to him over you everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
    Look, man. You are the one that rolled up in the thread saying anyone wanting to run a big tire on the back of an HDR was stupid. Im assuming many of them are good enough not to need a company sponsored pro, even one as legendary as Brian Lopes, to tell them what tires their bike needs.

    You can run whatever tires you want, but there are plenty of folks that want to be able to run up to a 2.5" tire on a 5" travel bike. My guess is they aren't riding loamy Bay Area singletrack most of the time.

  69. #69
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,428
    hillharman & mazspeed - Please take this off line if you want to get into a pissing match, this is a place for more decorum. Provide some insight, opinion, etc., but lets drop the belittling.


    I have ridden and personally know Brian, and he can out ride me on a huffy. His (or any pro's) choice of frames, tire size, etc., is interesting information, but has nothing to do with the way I or any of the rest of us ride, or the local conditions that we encounter. I personally like fat tires, as my local rocky terrain is interspersed with pea gravel and sand, and they are my preference, as they feel and float better to me. Fat tires aren't right or wrong, they just are what they are, nothing more and nothing less. The fact is that Ibis and many other manufacturers have squeezed wheels as tightly as they can into frames for design, production and geometry reasons, and sometimes large tires just don't quite fit.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by pastajet View Post
    hillharman & mazspeed - Please take this off line if you want to get into a pissing match, this is a place for more decorum. Provide some insight, opinion, etc., but lets drop the belittling.


    I have ridden and personally know Brian, and he can out ride me on a huffy. His (or any pro's) choice of frames, tire size, etc., is interesting information, but has nothing to do with the way I or any of the rest of us ride, or the local conditions that we encounter. I personally like fat tires, as my local rocky terrain is interspersed with pea gravel and sand, and they are my preference, as they feel and float better to me. Fat tires aren't right or wrong, they just are what they are, nothing more and nothing less. The fact is that Ibis and many other manufacturers have squeezed wheels as tightly as they can into frames for design, production and geometry reasons, and sometimes large tires just don't quite fit.
    Thanks. That's all I intended to say... I just get riled up when people think they know what works best for other people's riding.

  71. #71
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,942
    The HD-R shouldn't have been marketed as a 650b bike. It has too little clearance and travel unless it's used as an XC bike, in which case it's too heavy.
    As a 26", minor revision to the HD it's great. Lighter and more tire clearance, terrific. Now, keep it and the SL-R in the fleet for the 26", short chainstay fans and build similar bikes specifically for 650b. Bikes that can compete with the Solo and Bronson.
    Keep the Country country.

Similar Threads

  1. A9C RDO 1x10 crank/chain ring frame clearence
    By thomasc in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 02:24 AM
  2. Pivot 429c or Rocky RSL BC, weight, mud clearence?
    By kaplanjoe in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-16-2012, 09:33 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-04-2012, 12:02 PM
  4. Fork-downtube clearence ?
    By serhij in forum Turner
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-26-2011, 10:00 PM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 10:15 PM

Members who have read this thread: 5

Posting Permissions

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