Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,607

    Kenda 2.35 isn't that big...

    Well compared to a 26" 2.35" version. I measure a tires volume by spreading the carcass flat and measuring bead to bead. The 650b 2.35" Kenda measues 5.25" the same as a 26" 2.1 Kenda SB8. I remember a Kenda 650b thread where someone stated the same thing. I was hoping for monster volume like my 26ers but i'll give it a spin , oh well.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GrampBredo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    385
    What width rim is it on? Wider rims make wider tires.

    And Kenda's sizing is inconsistent. An old set of 2.35" DH tires I had measured 1.9" in actuality.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,607
    Quote Originally Posted by GrampBredo
    What width rim is it on? Wider rims make wider tires.

    And Kenda's sizing is inconsistent. An old set of 2.35" DH tires I had measured 1.9" in actuality.
    My volume measrment is w/ the tire off the bike ..

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GrampBredo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    385
    Kenda's sizing maybe.

  5. #5
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by keen
    Well compared to a 26" 2.35" version. I measure a tires volume by spreading the carcass flat and measuring bead to bead. The 650b 2.35" Kenda measues 5.25" the same as a 26" 2.1 Kenda SB8. I remember a Kenda 650b thread where someone stated the same thing. I was hoping for monster volume like my 26ers but i'll give it a spin , oh well.
    Not the case in the Neves I have measured. In fact the 2.35 "B" is slightly bigger than the 26x2.35. Are you sure you did not get the 2.10 version?
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,607
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Not the case in the Neves I have measured. In fact the 2.35 "B" is slightly bigger than the 26x2.35. Are you sure you did not get the 2.10 version?
    Well the tire is marked as a 2.35. I have not mounted the tire to measure the tread width but the Volume is on par w/ a 2.1. I measured my Kenda BG 2.5 and the carcass bead to bead is almost 6" - I recall a 2.35" is between 5.5-5.75" but I don't have one laying around.

  7. #7
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by keen
    Well the tire is marked as a 2.35. I have not mounted the tire to measure the tread width but the Volume is on par w/ a 2.1. I measured my Kenda BG 2.5 and the carcass bead to bead is almost 6" - I recall a 2.35" is between 5.5-5.75" but I don't have one laying around.
    A quick check of bead to bead width (inside, not over the tread):
    Neve Bx2.10: 137mm
    Neve Bx2.35: 145
    Neve 29x2.20: 144
    Kenda El Moco 26x2.10: 139

    Tough to measure consistently as the bead edges are uneven.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    140
    Measuring this way is not a accurate way to measure tire width. Your measuring the width of the tread and how tall the sidewall is. Unless the 2 tires your comparing use the same sidewall they can't be compared.


    Mounting the same tire on a wider or skinner rim does not change the width of the tire, only the tires profile. A wider rim will flatten the profile of the tire giving it the appearance of being wider.

    Now if you just want to know the volume of a tire, measuring bead to bead is a great idea.
    Last edited by kmorast; 10-17-2009 at 05:44 PM.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,607
    Quote Originally Posted by kmorast
    Measuring this way is not a accurate way to measure tire width. Your measuring the width of the tread and how tall the sidewall is. Unless the 2 tires your comparing use the same sidewall they can't be compared.

    I haven't measured the width of any tires, but if I was going to, I would measure from the outside edges of the tread across the tire.

    Mounting the same tire on a wider or skinner rim does not change the width of the tire, only the tires profile. A wider rim will flatten the profile of the tire giving it the appearance of being wider.
    I am confused How is measuring from bead to bead w/ the carcass pressed flat different than across the tread from edge to edge - its the same ???

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,607
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    A quick check of bead to bead width (inside, not over the tread):
    Neve Bx2.10: 137mm
    Neve Bx2.35: 145
    Neve 29x2.20: 144
    Kenda El Moco 26x2.10: 139

    Tough to measure consistently as the bead edges are uneven.
    Look pretty close to me. I'd like to see a 26 x 2.35 measured.

  11. #11
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Just as well. Any bigger and it probably wouldn't clear any 26 inch forks with a safe gap.

    Keen, or Shiggy, do you have a Pacenti 650b tire (any size) to compare with the Nevegal 2.35 bead to bead? (BTW, all sizes of the Pacenti tires from 2.0 to 2.3 use the same casing and should have the same bead to bead.)

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,607
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    Just as well. Any bigger and it probably wouldn't clear any 26 inch forks with a safe gap.

    Keen, or Shiggy, do you have a Pacenti 650b tire (any size) to compare with the Nevegal 2.35 bead to bead? (BTW, all sizes of the Pacenti tires from 2.0 to 2.3 use the same casing and should have the same bead to bead.)
    Ok interior of tire (outside tread messes w/ the measurment) : Kenda 650b 2.35" measures 5.5" bead to bead, Pacenti Neomoto 650b 2.35" measures 5.5" and a 26 x 2.1 Kenda SB8 measures 5.4". I assumed the 2.35 650b would have the same volume as a 26er, guess not. Again just a volume check tread widths may be as stated. It would be nice if tire manufactures listed bead to bead widths for volume. I have purchased supposed large tires only to find small tire volumes. Go-ride use to list DH tire volume measrments.

  13. #13
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by keen
    Look pretty close to me. I'd like to see a 26 x 2.35 measured.
    Just realized I had a El Moco 26x2.35: 140mm, though it has yet to be mounted and "stretched." It is common for a new tire to gain 1-3mm in (mounted) casing width after being mounted and inflated to max psi for 24 hours. My other numbers are for "stretched" tires.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  14. #14
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by kmorast
    Measuring this way is not a accurate way to measure tire width. Your measuring the width of the tread and how tall the sidewall is. Unless the 2 tires your comparing use the same sidewall they can't be compared.

    I haven't measured the width of any tires, but if I was going to, I would measure from the outside edges of the tread across the tire.

    Mounting the same tire on a wider or skinner rim does not change the width of the tire, only the tires profile. A wider rim will flatten the profile of the tire giving it the appearance of being wider.
    You have no clue about what you are talking about. You admit to have never measured a tire. I have measured more than 500 tires, all in the same manner and on a control rim. Plus I have measured various tires on different width rims. It can make a significant difference in MEASURABLE size and well as shape of the tire. The results are available on my Tire Site.

    In short, your statement is completely wrong.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  15. #15
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by derby
    Just as well. Any bigger and it probably wouldn't clear any 26 inch forks with a safe gap.

    Keen, or Shiggy, do you have a Pacenti 650b tire (any size) to compare with the Nevegal 2.35 bead to bead? (BTW, all sizes of the Pacenti tires from 2.0 to 2.3 use the same casing and should have the same bead to bead.)
    The Pacenti tires are 145mm bead to bead
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  16. #16
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    The Pacenti tires are 145mm bead to bead
    Thanks Keen and Shiggy.

    The prototype Nevegal 650b displayed last year was visibly and by touch much larger volume in casing size than the Neomoto. The prototype Negeval would not have cleared very many 26" frames or forks.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.