Tire size rant - long/rambling
Please set me straight (I know this probably belongs elsewhere on MTBR, but I know that responses are 1)fastest on Turner board and 2)now I have a Spot, which I figure gives me the ok to bi*ch here...
Since I built up my Spot have been running Conti Survival 2.3's - very grippy, but slow. Thought I might try the Hutchinson Scorpion 2.0's I had from my previous bike, just for kicks... I measured both on the same rim, at 30 lbs pressure, and the 2.0 Hutch came out at about 2.17, while the Conti 2.3 measured 2.05 at best - a difference of 0.4"+ compared to listed size - What the hell?! Not to mention, the Hutch's have gotten some crappy reviews here, but honestly they have been great for me the last 5-6 rides, using about 30 lbs pressure... also have used WTB Weirwolf, 2.3/2.1, and don't really like them - roll well, but not great for the mud/changing conditions here in East TN. Also seem on the small side compared to the Hutch's.
Never thought I'd say the French made a superior product to the Germans, and maybe it's just this new tequila talking, but I am much more impressed with the Hutch's than the Conti's... Please discuss. Also, Gonzostrike, if you will flame me, it will truly make me feel like a Turner board regular... kidding
I once corrected DW about a bicycle related topic.
... I guess you won't be
I believe tire diameter, or how far the tread is from the center of the axle, plays a bigger part in how a tire feels from one tire to the next.....low profile tires seem to feel snappier than big fatties, because a lower profile tire actually lowers the overall gear ratio. The taller profile tire, the harder you have to pedal for the same gear ratio on your cassette.
I noticed this dramatically today, when I put on a tall geax 2.25 sturdy in place of a worn out panaracer 2.1 fire.....the fire is a small volume low profile knobby, and the sturdy is a super tall high volume tire....the difference in accelleration was noticeable.
It would be interesting to find out if your Hutch tires are lower profile than your conti's....
That's a great observation, man. I never thought about it, but yeah, each time I get a bigger tire set I feel like I am working harder up the hills, but I am actually as fast or faster.
Originally Posted by jokermtb
But to answer the original question,
First, Continental tires are notorious for being very small for their claimed size, which would explain why your Hutchinsons are actually larger.
As to you liking a certain tire an not the other, that's usually the design of the tread and the compound of the rubber. Each person has their goals of what they want to achieve from their tires, so it is impossible to plainly say that this tire is better than the other, although, obviously there are some exceptionally bad and exceptionally good designs.
Finally, as a general rule for riding in muddy conditions, you want a tire with an aggressive tread which does a good job of shedding mud. The jury, however, is out on whether a skinner tire, which will sink through the top layer of mud and hook up to the harder surface is superior to a fatter tire which will float over the mud.
The Weirwolf is a tire for dry, sandy conditions. It packs up with mud and it is really squirmy on hardpack. The Survival is actually billed as an extreme conditions tire, but apparently it doesn't work for you well, I don't know much else about it. The Scorpion on the other hand is actually a decent mixed conditions tire which sheds mud well.
Finally, I would recommend you try a set of Nokian NBXs.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
-- Einstein, Albert