Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wiebs6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    24

    New question here. Will PANARACER FIRE FR PRO's work on my bike

    I was wounding how wide the panaracer fire fr pro is. So I can see if it fits my bike
    Last edited by wiebs6; 05-09-2005 at 04:56 PM.

  2. #2
    We want... a shrubbery!
    Reputation: ickyickyptngzutboing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    550
    Umm... we're going to need a little more information. (Ex. what conditions you want to ride in, what kind of riding you do...)
    waaahoooooooooooooooooo

    Calvin : Ahhh, another bowl of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs! The second bowl is always the best! The pleasure of my first bowl is diminished by the anticipation of future bowls and by the end of my third bowl, I usually feel sick.
    Hobbes : Maybe you shouldn't use chocolate milk.
    Calvin : I tried Cola, but the bubbles went up my nose.

  3. #3
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260
    Quote Originally Posted by wiebs6
    I was wounding how wide the panaracer fire fr pro so I know if they fit my bike before I order then form JensonUSA
    what kind of bike? They are really huge. I have used them on my Bullit and now as a front tire on my single speed and depending on what frame/fork, especilly frame if you plan to use them as a rear tire (not recommended by the way), they may prove problematic.

    cheers

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wiebs6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    24
    i just want to know how wide they are in (cm.)

  5. #5
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260

    Sure

    Quote Originally Posted by wiebs6
    i just want to know how wide they are in (cm.)
    Casing width = 5.62 cm
    Tread width = 6.48 cm

    cheers

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wiebs6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    24
    Thanks

  7. #7
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260
    you are welcome

  8. #8
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,231
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    Casing width = 5.62 cm
    Tread width = 6.48 cm

    cheers
    Come on, shiz! At least credit where you found those numbers!
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  9. #9
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Come on, shiz! At least credit where you found those numbers!
    damn, caught red handed!!! I wanted to look like I was useful for once....

    fair enough Shiggy, I measured em myself, only to find out that your incredible website (www.mtbtires.com) had the same info just kidding, I went straight to the tire bible you have created for all of your underlings but I had to do some complicated math since you post in millimeters so I had to get out the calculator and put it into centimeters as he requested so that should count for something

    in all seriousness, to everybody, consider Shiggy's aforementioned website an FAQ for any tire-related info that should be checked prior to posting a question here.

    cheers
    Last edited by FoShizzle; 05-09-2005 at 11:10 PM.

  10. #10
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,231
    Thank you

    You did answer the question more directly than I would have.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  11. #11
    I <3 29ers
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    rear tire (not recommended by the way), they may prove problematic.

    cheers
    Can you expand on this more? Yes, I looked on Shiggy's site already.
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies.

  12. #12
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,231
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTO
    Can you expand on this more? Yes, I looked on Shiggy's site already.
    They are too big for many frames.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    They are too big for many frames.
    My reasoning is that they have MAJOR rolling resistance. The tread depth is monstrous. These things are like tractor tires. They are okay for winter riding, but I dump them from the rear as soon as the soil dries out.

  14. #14
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260
    Quote Originally Posted by justen
    My reasoning is that they have MAJOR rolling resistance. The tread depth is monstrous. These things are like tractor tires. They are okay for winter riding, but I dump them from the rear as soon as the soil dries out.
    agreed. the rolling resistance is why i did not recommend them as a rear tire.

    cheers

  15. #15
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,231
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    agreed. the rolling resistance is why i did not recommend them as a rear tire.
    Though perfect if you are looking for maximum traction and have the room to fit it.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  16. #16
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Though perfect if you are looking for maximum traction and have the room to fit it.
    fair enough. you are right, they sure grabbed like hell when i ran them f and r on the Bullit. I should have said for my riding, I would prefer less rolling resistance.

    cheers

  17. #17
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,456
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Though perfect if you are looking for maximum traction and have the room to fit it.

    yep! one of my fav tires to run on the rear of my hardtail! recently swapped to the fire dh 2.3, to see how it compared. feels very different, likely just because of the weight. the FR version i think i actually prefer over the DH for general riding.

    the 2.4 FR, the conti 2.5 deisel, and the trailbear 2.5 are my current favs in the "big, but not tanklike heavy" tire category.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: justen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover
    yep! one of my fav tires to run on the rear of my hardtail! recently swapped to the fire dh 2.3, to see how it compared. feels very different, likely just because of the weight. the FR version i think i actually prefer over the DH for general riding.

    the 2.4 FR, the conti 2.5 deisel, and the trailbear 2.5 are my current favs in the "big, but not tanklike heavy" tire category.
    LOL. This thread is funny. If I had to pick one word to describe the FR 2.4 on my rear, tanklike would be it. All the posts in this thread have been honest, and pretty much spot-on. The FR 2.4 is a huge tire with AWESOME grip. Huge lugs. This may be a benefit or limitation, depending on where you ride. The lugs are also pretty widelyl spaced, making it a great mud tire (if you are of the wide, floating mud tire religion, as opposed to the narrow, skinny mud tire believers).

  19. #19
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,231
    Quote Originally Posted by justen
    LOL. This thread is funny. If I had to pick one word to describe the FR 2.4 on my rear, tanklike would be it. All the posts in this thread have been honest, and pretty much spot-on. The FR 2.4 is a huge tire with AWESOME grip. Huge lugs. This may be a benefit or limitation, depending on where you ride. The lugs are also pretty widelyl spaced, making it a great mud tire (if you are of the wide, floating mud tire religion, as opposed to the narrow, skinny mud tire believers).
    Maybe "tank-like" in traction but not tank-like in weight compared to a DH tire of around the same size. 2.3 - 2.7" DH tires are in the 1200-1500g range rather than the Fire FR's 900g.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,933
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Maybe "tank-like" in traction but not tank-like in weight compared to a DH tire of around the same size. 2.3 - 2.7" DH tires are in the 1200-1500g range rather than the Fire FR's 900g.
    Does the FR have the side-bite to make a good front tire for loose stuff?

  21. #21
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,231
    Quote Originally Posted by fsrxc
    Does the FR have the side-bite to make a good front tire for loose stuff?
    .Yes.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  22. #22
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,456
    Quote Originally Posted by fsrxc
    Does the FR have the side-bite to make a good front tire for loose stuff?

    i'll agree with shig and say yes. but......

    i've had a few times of it not being so hot in front with sandy stuff on top of hardpack/rock. even messing with pressure, it seems to not like that type of stuff. love it for every other conditon i've had it in, front and rear.

    try it out, see if you like it.

    i'm also liking the weirwolf 2.5. it and the trailbear 2.5 are good choices in the same category, though are for sure smaller. i keep swapping all these tires around, and can't really find a fav; like them all. pretty much my daily tires, unless i'm doing a ride where i really want the full on DH tires.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

Similar Threads

  1. Mountain bike jargon/ lingo
    By bstguitarist in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-26-2005, 01:02 PM
  2. Forks, Frames and Five Hundred Dollars.
    By AdamOn6thStreet in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-25-2005, 10:10 PM
  3. blast from the past, cut/paste from archived MTB DOC posts
    By ashwinearl in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-09-2005, 09:47 AM
  4. Panaracer Fire FR 2.4 + rigid fork?
    By Earthpig in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 05:57 PM
  5. Panaracer Fire FR 2.4 + rigid fork (SS x-post)
    By Earthpig in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 08:07 AM

Posting Permissions

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