fat tires on ss- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 52 of 52

Thread: fat tires on ss

  1. #1
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,149

    fat tires on ss

    not FAT tires but just fatter tires. ive noticed alot of people ride >2.1 light weight low resistance tires (as am i) currently im riding 2.1 small block 8s f&r and i love how fast they are on the dirt and street but they arent grippy enough for what im riding. i know nevegals would be ideal. 2.1 rear 2.35 front? im not a fan of high rotational weight although i know i need different tires.

    going from whats listed will it throw off my ratio also? i just bought a new cog recently.

    i ride 8 miles to the trails from my house also.

    im probably just gonna go ahead and try it but id love to hear some suggestions before i do.
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding View Post
    The dude is like 120lbs, tops lol he can run any tires he wants without issues, i'm sure.

  2. #2
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Not going to throw off the ratio by any noticable amount . I used to run nevagals and found them to be a very slow rolling tire , alot of grip though . Now running Bonty XDX , works great in everything but mud .

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7daysaweek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,635
    I have a nevegal 2.2 up front and a sb8 on the back. I love it. Very grippy and still feels pretty fast.


    Also as for the slippage, try running your pressures a little lower. I get excellent grip with my SB8's running around 22 psi.
    Last edited by 7daysaweek; 12-02-2009 at 09:44 AM.

  4. #4
    Paste eater
    Reputation: Jwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,681
    2.35 rampage front and back. nothing smaller. ever.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    578
    2.4 front and 2.2 rear (The 2.2 actually measures .25 bigger then the 2.3's I had on there)
    conti rubber queens

    love them!

    I am also riding fully rigid, but the more time I spend on my SS the harder it is to ride a smaller tire. I had to get rid of the 2.1's on my FS and went bigger.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gjenkins@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,598
    I am running Flows with Nevegal 2.2's front and back. I have never weighed my bikes before, and I was shocked when these wheels came in at 10+ pounds. They are nice for a fully rigid bike.

  7. #7
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
    Not going to throw off the ratio by any noticable amount . I used to run nevagals and found them to be a very slow rolling tire , alot of grip though . Now running Bonty XDX , works great in everything but mud .
    my main reason for wanting to change tires is this.
    i will be 85 percent done with a hill climb and then ill get out of the saddle. and my rear tire doesnt grip enough and slips. so with that said ill keep researching for an inbetween tire wile at work today.
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding View Post
    The dude is like 120lbs, tops lol he can run any tires he wants without issues, i'm sure.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gjenkins@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by veloreality
    my main reason for wanting to change tires is this.
    i will be 85 percent done with a hill climb and then ill get out of the saddle. and my rear tire doesnt grip enough and slips. so with that said ill keep researching for an inbetween tire wile at work today.
    There may be a technique solution, as the guys I ride with are on Nevegal 2.1 SB 8's. I sometimes hear slippage when they stand, but mostly they have it working. I hear slippage when I first stand on steep climbs with 2.2s ... until I adjust my weight back. I was a seated climber on my geared bike, and had dialed in how to ride without any slippage. Now that I have moved to SS, the technique isn't all there yet, but the slippage is generally during transition from seated to standing.

  9. #9
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwind
    2.35 rampage front and back. nothing smaller. ever.
    Same here, on 38mm wide rims!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gjenkins@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky
    Same here, on 38mm wide rims!
    The Rampage looks like it has the same center blocks as the Nevegals. Does anyone ever run these backwards on the rear tire for better climbing traction?

  11. #11
    Chronic 1st-timer
    Reputation: lubes17319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,420
    Why not give something like the Crossmark a shot?
    Rolls pretty well, and has a touch more grip than the SB8s. If you go w/the chunkies, you'll definitely feel the loss in speed, but on the good side, you'll get much more gription.

    I regularly ride about 5 miles of pavement to get to my backyard trail & the high grip tires were being chewed up in just over a month each time. I went the opposite way: from slow, fat grippy tires & found my way to the Crossmark. Just took a few rides to used to it.
    Trailwrecker at large

  12. #12
    Rocket Boy
    Reputation: Arby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    272
    I recommend the WTB Exiwolf's. I use 2.3's front and rear and they seem to work really well in all conditions. They have "fairly" low profile knobs but not as small as the Small Block 8's. I'm not sure how light they are but they're not mega-whoppers.
    Arby

    Here they are:

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cockroach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    161
    Arby, I've got the same bike (GT Peace) with the same tyres.
    I love them, cushy ride at the right pressure (not too high) and I've never had a problem with grip except in really wet mud.
    I wouldn't ride a rigid on skinny tyres.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kbollox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    145
    Still lovin my DMR MotoDigger 2.35's.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,120
    I agree with those that say it's technique. You're gonna be dissappointed if you replace that rear tire. I am running a 29x2.1 SB8 on the rear and a 29x2.3 Panaracer Rampage on the front. I used to have Rampages front and rear - the SB8 has less rolling resistance and grips just as well as the Rampage in most conditions. The Rampage might have a slight advantage in gravel or small rocks, otherwise, the SB8 is an amazingly grippy tire given how smooth it rolls. When climbing out of the saddle I notice slippage in the rear no matter what tire if I don't adjust my body position correctly.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gjenkins@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29
    I agree with those that say it's technique. You're gonna be dissappointed if you replace that rear tire. I am running a 29x2.1 SB8 on the rear and a 29x2.3 Panaracer Rampage on the front. I used to have Rampages front and rear - the SB8 has less rolling resistance and grips just as well as the Rampage in most conditions. The Rampage might have a slight advantage in gravel or small rocks, otherwise, the SB8 is an amazingly grippy tire given how smooth it rolls. When climbing out of the saddle I notice slippage in the rear no matter what tire if I don't adjust my body position correctly.
    It is shocking how much your arms are needed ... it is truly a full body effort.

  17. #17
    I have red hair
    Reputation: RedGreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    265
    +1 on the Crossmarks. Great rolling tire, but fairly aggressive intermediate and cornering knobs give the best of both worlds. I swore by them for years until i needed something larger for my rigid SS (2.4s ) Otherwise try tunning your rear SB8 backwards.
    "I don't believe in brakes, all they do is slow you down"

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15

    Continental Mountain Kings

    These are great grippy tires with a "chili" rubber compound. I am able to clean sections on my SS that I couldn't before due to slipping out. Make sure you get the 2.4 though as these tires run really small in size compared to others. They are more like a 2.2 - 2.3. I originally bought the 2.2's and had to exchange them since they were really skinny.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cockroach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    161
    Interesting that some of you are using wider tyres on the front, the opposite of motocross.
    What's the thinking behind that?
    I'm not having a go at you, I've just not seen it before.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ccornacc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    310
    I am running a 2.1 Ignitor in the rear and a 2.2 Saguro up front. Both 29er tires. I have found the ignitor to be the best all around for lightweight, grippy and fast rolling. Slightly slower than the crossmarks, but far more grip in my opinion. I had a Rampage up front, but noticed the saguro was a faster roller. I also run and ignitor rear and 2.55 WWLT on my geared bike and that set up is fast rolling and grippy too.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by cockroach
    Interesting that some of you are using wider tyres on the front, the opposite of motocross.
    What's the thinking behind that?
    I'm not having a go at you, I've just not seen it before.
    the wider tire up front provides some extra grip and extra cush for riding rigid. I run a slightly smaller lighter tire in the rear for low rolling resistance and lighter weight both of which help aid in turning the tire over / pedaling efficiency of the rear tire.

    I've been running a WTB Weirwolf LT 29x2.55 up front but am about to mount a Panaracer Rampage 29x2.35 up front. I have been pleased with the Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25x650b on the rear on my Soma B-Side. Carbon rigid fork. the racing ralph is a good high volume, low tread pattern but still grippy tire for the rear. And even in 650b it only weighed 510 grams .

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,022
    Quote Originally Posted by cockroach
    Interesting that some of you are using wider tyres on the front, the opposite of motocross.
    What's the thinking behind that?
    I'm not having a go at you, I've just not seen it before.
    actually most MTBers usually end up using wider front tires eventually, although it is somewhat confused by the difference in tire style and tread design too. The larger front tires that people choose usually also have more aggressive tread, and if they use similar width tires the front still usually has a more aggressive tread.

    A narrower or lighter or lower tread rear tire weighs less and the tread pattern usually has less rolling resistance. We don't have high power engines to move us so these things make a bigger difference.

    A larger or more aggressive tire up front will grip better in turns and is much less likely to wash out than the types of tires used for speed on the rear. Additionally a larger tire has more air volume and will soak up small bumps better than any fork can and generally just feel less harsh. Since MTBs have a lot less travel this is more significant.

    With a combination like that you don't loose too much in speed when pedaling and you can still confidently push hard through the turns and any other rough spots.

    Basic summary: washing out the rear tire is usually easy to recover from without crashing, washing out the front tire is an instant face plant. Therefore we sacrifice speed and rolling resistance only where we need it most: the front

  23. #23
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,667
    Quote Originally Posted by gjenkins@
    The Rampage looks like it has the same center blocks as the Nevegals. Does anyone ever run these backwards on the rear tire for better climbing traction?
    Yep, that's how my rear is setup. It climbs well like that too.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  24. #24
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,149
    i think im gonna go with the Michelin XC AT Folding tires 2.00 front and rear?
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding View Post
    The dude is like 120lbs, tops lol he can run any tires he wants without issues, i'm sure.

  25. #25
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,651

    +1

    I'm with you, Jwind. Smaller tires are for road bikes & pavement commuters AFAIC.

    Personally I prefer the performance of fat tires over the weight savings of skinny tires. But... to each his own.

    --Sparty

    Quote Originally Posted by Jwind
    2.35 rampage front and back. nothing smaller. ever.
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  26. #26
    Ovaries on the Outside
    Reputation: umarth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,366
    Nev 2.35 front and 2.1 rear. No complaints, but I'm not picky.

    Nice GT.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by cockroach
    Interesting that some of you are using wider tyres on the front, the opposite of motocross.
    What's the thinking behind that?
    I'm not having a go at you, I've just not seen it before.
    Business in the front, party in the back

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,255
    2.35 Rampage on the front
    2.55 WeirWolf LT on the back

    Ramapge is slightly bigger than the WW but the WW has more volume (does that make sense?)

    Love the ride...grippy but super cushy.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Renovatio
    2.35 Rampage on the front
    2.55 WeirWolf LT on the back

    Ramapge is slightly bigger than the WW but the WW has more volume (does that make sense?)

    Love the ride...grippy but super cushy.
    Glad to hear you like it and that the tire is being put to good use

  30. #30
    Teen Wolf
    Reputation: cr45h's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    891
    nevegal 2.35 front sb8 2.1 rear. looking to switch out the nevegal next year as it's just too damn slow. i like how plush it is but it sucks for racing. conti explorer 2.1 is my other front tire choice at the moment.

    will be switching to something new for next season.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: azjonboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,667
    WW 2.55 front and rear for almost 3 years. Sometimes rigid, sometimes Reba'd. Rigid I run 24psi front. Reba'd 26 psi front. I run 25-26psi rear.

    I've always run them tubeless on Flows. I like them so much both wheelsets, I9/Flows and King/Flows have WW's on.
    If you're lucky enough to be in the mountains,
    you're lucky enough.

  32. #32
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,603
    I find on my SS that a lower rolling-resistance tire on the rear will work to make the bike feel faster and lighter - don't seem to notice a larger/heavier "slower" tread up front as much. Boomn and a few others voiced my sentiment - more beef for the front for grip and stability, a little faster and narrower for the rear. The Crossmark and Nano, SB8 and others should be great rear tires in all but really sloppy or loose-marble conditions. I rode an Exiwolf on the rear (29 x 2.3) for quite a while and liked it. I like the Captain 2.2 also. That said, I have been running the (now discontinued) Resolution Pro in the front... May go to a Ardent or something like that when my front tire supply is gone. Narrower tires in the rear will also be able to "dig down" a bit more and grip in looser or softer conditions. I rode a friend's bike with the Crossmark on the rear and was pleasantly surprised at how well it gripped - and it rolled as easily as I thought it was going to. Might try that one next!
    R.I.P. Corky 10/97-4/09
    Disclaimer: I sell and repair bikes for a living


  33. #33
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,149
    everyone listing sb8 in the rear doesnt understand my point. a nevegal or bigger tire in the front wont do much for my rear tire slipping out. i put the michelins on and ill ride it thiss weekend and if this threads still going ill let you all know how they work out.
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding View Post
    The dude is like 120lbs, tops lol he can run any tires he wants without issues, i'm sure.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    378
    i am running a Cinder 2.25 out back and i love the traction but it feels a little slow anyone ever try the geax aka yet? also thinking of a Nobby nic

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: azjonboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,667
    You can get a better grip from your tire by lowering pressure to meet specific terrain. A narrower tire will be harder to reduce pressure on enough to compensate for loss of traction. A wider tire gives a little more room for experimentation. A higher psi increases rolling resistance and can cause you to bounce over objects. Try a lower psi first.
    If you're lucky enough to be in the mountains,
    you're lucky enough.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gjenkins@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,598
    Rolling resistance
    Which factors affect rolling resistance?
    Tire pressure, tire diameter, tire construction, tire tread and other factors all have an effect on rolling resistance. The higher the tire pressure, the less is tire deformation and thus the rolling resistance. Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same tire pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more important, in other words the tire is “less round”. Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more. Obviously, tire construction also has an effect on rolling resistance. The less material is used, the less material there is to deform. And the more flexible the material is, such as the rubber compound, the less energy is lost through deformation. Generally, smooth treads roll better than coarse treads. Tall lugs and wide gaps usually have a detrimental effect on rolling resistance.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: azjonboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,667
    Mtb tires bounce off rocks at higher pressures. Lower pressures allow deformation by the tire to roll over the rock, not deflect to the side. This is why a wider tire at lower pressure rolls over rocks faster. Run a 2.0 at 40 psi on a rocky trail. Now run a 2.5 at 26psi on the same trail. It's even more pronounced on a hardtail or full rigid bike.
    If you're lucky enough to be in the mountains,
    you're lucky enough.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gjenkins@'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,598
    According to the article, the deformation is rolling resistance. I wonder which is worse/slower. I know which is more uncomfortable. Of course, this has to be integrated across a whole ride.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: azjonboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,667
    Yeah, the article almost seems slanted to road tires. I know I am faster on my local trails with less pressure in my tires. Higher pressure does 2 things: Bounces me all over the place and destroys my back!
    If you're lucky enough to be in the mountains,
    you're lucky enough.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    Glad to hear you like it and that the tire is being put to good use
    Seriously Boomn, its a rocking rear tire. I'm much much faster on the choppy section between B-trail and Salmon hole becasue I'm not being bounced all over the place and climbing traction is tight too. It barely fits my rear chain stay though, about 1/4in off . I would love to go bigger (Mountain King 2.4? Ardert?) but can't justify it, you can only go so fast downhill on a singlespeed, anything more would be too luxurious.

  41. #41
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,149
    what i will be running now is the michelin tires listed above at 30psi. when i rode the sb8's at 40psi. also the sb8's were 2.1 and the michelins are 2.0
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding View Post
    The dude is like 120lbs, tops lol he can run any tires he wants without issues, i'm sure.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,431
    You all may need to head to the wheel/tyres forums and read some of the Stickys. There's one there about rolling resistance of most major tyre brands and models....and its the fatter tyres that win.
    There's also another test mentioned in that thread done by Schwalbe, where they tested 3 of their own tyres (Fred's Ralphs and I think NN) at different pressures, different widths and different surfaces. The gist was if you want to roll faster, use a wider tyre at lower pressure. This test also takes the heavier weight of wider tyres into account, as it shows W required to keep the tyre rolling at a certain speed.

    Off road, the more the tyre deforms around obstacles the better it rolls (hence why UST feels faster, b/c you can run lower pressures than with tubes). The wider the tyre, the more you can lower the pressure before it feels squirmy. Also wider rims make for better tyre stability too.
    Hope you like the thesis
    Rimmer - "There's an old human saying - if you talk garbage, expect pain"

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: azjonboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,667
    Gee, sounds like our discussion abov.
    If you're lucky enough to be in the mountains,
    you're lucky enough.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,286
    Something else to consider is moving your rear wheel as far forward as you can. This will shift more weight to the rear wheel which will give you more traction.

  45. #45
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by azjonboy
    Yeah, the article almost seems slanted to road tires.
    That article does, but there was another article about a study done 4-5 years ago that also addressed road bikes/tires specifically and came to the opposite conclusion. Their conclusion was the same as yours, i.e. that higher psi creates more rolling resistance, not less. Even on pavement.

    If you look at what pro road mechanics are doing these days for race wheels/tires, particularly for time trials, you'll find they've moved away from what they did in the 90's, which was super narrow tubular tires running 190 psi. They run normal pressures now and time trialists have gotten faster and faster. Of course, EPO deserves some of the credit.

  46. #46
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,149
    ^^
    good point.
    although i have vertical dropouts with an ebb.
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding View Post
    The dude is like 120lbs, tops lol he can run any tires he wants without issues, i'm sure.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    86
    Mutanoraptor 2.24 front and Specialized control 2.1 rear. Rolls fast and sticks to trail.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kbollox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    145
    Just got a set of Michelin Hot 2.5's in at the LBS today. Goin whole hog on the fatty Surly 1x1 setup for the snow we just got.

  49. #49
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,149
    i dont think i needed fat tires, just a tire with more spaced out deeper knobs. thats my thoery but ill find out for myself this winter.
    ive ridden twice with the 2.0 michelins and havent noticed any real difference. i do imagine they will shed mud alot better then the sb8's.
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding View Post
    The dude is like 120lbs, tops lol he can run any tires he wants without issues, i'm sure.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: farrisw1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by cinemachine
    These are great grippy tires with a "chili" rubber compound. I am able to clean sections on my SS that I couldn't before due to slipping out. Make sure you get the 2.4 though as these tires run really small in size compared to others. They are more like a 2.2 - 2.3. I originally bought the 2.2's and had to exchange them since they were really skinny.
    +1 on these, running them front and back and love em, no slippage...EVER; mud, dirt, sand, climbing, cornering....I've been quite surprised by their grippage, on many a climb I've thought, damn, I'm about to spin and lose all traction but they always dig in and keep me moving!

  51. #51
    Is that Bill rated?
    Reputation: Lord Humongous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    440

    Compound & Pressure

    I have always found that tread compound and tire pressure make a larger difference in my rear tire's traction than any variation in tread block orientation or height. For my rear tire right now I run Hutchinson Python 2.3 UST tire with the MRC Medium (a 48a durometer) rubber at around 28 psi (quite low for this big guy on a 2.3.) This allows me to enjoy a fast rolling rear tire and still have the same effective traction as my riding friends. If I blow a climb it is because I ran out of gas, not traction.
    Of course my other bike takes this idea to ridiculous extremes, I don't think an Endomorph will be likely to assist you with you troubles.
    Well, it was a good try.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slowrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,792

    I like em

    On my 1fg, which had huge tire clearence, I ran up to 2.4 Maxis advantage rear, 2.5 Conti Diesel front to make up for the very rigid frame. In the end my favorite tire combo ended up bieng the Schwalbe 2.4 Nobby Nic front, Racing Ralph rear. Those tires are light enough (600g Nic, 540g Ralph) that I felt they gave enough advantage in traction and cushion to justify the slight rolling resistance disadvantage.

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.