Schwalbe tyre sizing - MM and FA- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Roll on Spring Time!
    Reputation: juan pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,547

    Schwalbe tyre sizing - MM and FA

    I am looking to put an order together from CRC and need some info on Schwalbe's MM and FA tyre sizing. I am running BB in 2.4 and they are large volume tyres. I want to try the MM up front and BB at the rear and while I am at it I want to try the FA for the same bike or possibley my trail rig. The sizes dont match though with the MM coming in 2.35, 2.5 and the FA 2.25 and 2.4. I am thinking FA rear 2.25 and MM 2.35 front but then If I run my BB out back it will outsize the MM up front. I dont do a massive amount of very rocky stuff and was thinking of does sizing for a little more speed.

    I really like the size of Maxxis 2.35 rear and 2.5 front if thats a good indication

    Any suggestions?

    And the 2.5 MM must be massive judging by the BB 2.4

  2. #2
    GAME ON!
    Reputation: saturnine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,964
    my 2.5 MM is about 2.65 by my measurement
    RIP Adam Yauch

    "M.C. for what I AM and do, the A is for Adam and the lyrics; true"

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    191
    Yep, 2.5 MM is massive.

    2.35 MM is similar to 2.5 Maxxis. I'd say no problem paired with a 2.4 BB in the rear.

  4. #4
    GAME ON!
    Reputation: saturnine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,964
    it's also over 1400g
    RIP Adam Yauch

    "M.C. for what I AM and do, the A is for Adam and the lyrics; true"

  5. #5
    N/A
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    235
    I'd advise against the 2.25 FA if you ride in rocky terrain. I tried one out in August and loved the size/weight/rolling resistance, but the tire lasted for 3 rides: 1 short warm-up ride at home, 1 ride down Hermosa Creek, and after 1 ride around Log Chutes in Durango, I was already missing 3 or 4 side knobs and the threads were fraying.

    I've been running a 2.4 FA rear since then and have had no issues. It's been a much more durable tire for me.

    Size-wise, the 2.4 FA is about as big as the 2.4 BB that I'm running on the front. But the knobs on BB are bigger.

  6. #6
    yeah, uh............bikes
    Reputation: FloridaFish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,712
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbkaz
    I'd advise against the 2.25 FA if you ride in rocky terrain. I tried one out in August and loved the size/weight/rolling resistance, but the tire lasted for 3 rides: 1 short warm-up ride at home, 1 ride down Hermosa Creek, and after 1 ride around Log Chutes in Durango, I was already missing 3 or 4 side knobs and the threads were fraying.

    I've been running a 2.4 FA rear since then and have had no issues. It's been a much more durable tire for me.

    Size-wise, the 2.4 FA is about as big as the 2.4 BB that I'm running on the front. But the knobs on BB are bigger.
    agree with the 2.4 FA recommendation, great big old tire that can run at low pressure and rolls decently. The only thing I would suggest is to get the gooey gluey if you are going to be riding in the wet. triple compound is good, but gooey gluey is where it's at for the wet stuff.

  7. #7
    biking is fun
    Reputation: climbingbubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,362
    im running fat alber front and rear on my nomad and they are awesome trail tires. they don't grip quite as good as the MM but they roll really well.

    they are fat. about the same size as a 2.4 maxxis advantages or a 2.35 MM.

  8. #8
    Roll on Spring Time!
    Reputation: juan pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,547
    Soo whats the difference then between the BB and FA? Is it worth picking up a FA or just get the MM 2.35 and run the 2.4 BB I have Out back. If I pick up 2 MMs I can run it in the rear when it gets wet.

  9. #9
    Roll on Spring Time!
    Reputation: juan pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,547
    1400g, thats for the 2.5MM? Hell thats 550g more than the 2.5 BB.

  10. #10
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    Quote Originally Posted by juan pablo
    1400g, thats for the 2.5MM? Hell thats 550g more than the 2.5 BB.
    You want size 2.35 MM in S-Skin, triple compound. They work fine setup tubeless, if that's what you want to do. Been running them Fr&Rr on my Intense SS since early August. Held up flawlessly to some serious floggin at Whizzler and been doing double duty as DJ and aggro trail/FR lately. They roll fast enough for a full knob and hookup very well. Weight comes in at 840-850g on my digi scale.

    My current favorite tires...

    FWIW, I have 2.4 FA's on my Knolly Endorphin. Really a great tire for AM/light FR/and fine for DJ. Not quite as much grip as the MM's when things get pinner.

    HTHs

  11. #11
    GAME ON!
    Reputation: saturnine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by juan pablo
    1400g, thats for the 2.5MM? Hell thats 550g more than the 2.5 BB.
    that's for the snakeskin dh triple casing.
    RIP Adam Yauch

    "M.C. for what I AM and do, the A is for Adam and the lyrics; true"

  12. #12
    Roll on Spring Time!
    Reputation: juan pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,547
    Kay, I will pick a set of 2.35s.

    Still curious bout difference between FA and BB

  13. #13
    biking is fun
    Reputation: climbingbubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by juan pablo
    Kay, I will pick a set of 2.35s.

    Still curious bout difference between FA and BB
    The main difference is knob size, pattern, and also weight. The FA looks closer to a MM but with smaller knobs. Im sure it would have less rolling resistance but loses some in traction.

    also the FA is about 100 grams lighter.

    i am using FA front and rear on my nomad for AM use. i have ridden some freeride trails and some steep ones too. you definately give up some in traction but it makes it alot nicer for the ups.

    If you are using it strictly for FR then i would go for the BB or MM. both are still fairly light but will have better traction and cornering characteristics.

    look up some of the older reviews from Bullcrew. he was using the 2.35 MM up front and the 2.4 BB in the back and said it was a killer combo.

  14. #14
    GAME ON!
    Reputation: saturnine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,964
    on the filpside, if you feel you are too fast on the climbs, throw on dual 2.5 dh MM and you'll slow right down.
    RIP Adam Yauch

    "M.C. for what I AM and do, the A is for Adam and the lyrics; true"

  15. #15
    Roll on Spring Time!
    Reputation: juan pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,547
    Bubba - What size FA you running. I was thinking maybe a FA rear and BB front for the hardtail. I use it for everything during my lunch time rides. Trail, lite DH, freeride and dj. Currently running Minion 3C 2.5 front and Larsen2.35/advantage 2.25 rear. Nice combo but the Schwalbes are dang ling for their given strength.

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.