Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    337

    Tire size 2.3 vs 2.6 vs 2.8

    https://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/a...-biking-53304/

    Interesting tire size testing on bikeradar, most scientific testing I have seen. Iknow I have been enjoying my 2.5s.

  2. #2
    Anytime. Anywhere.
    Reputation: Travis Bickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,212
    The 2.6 & 2.8 Butchers used are under size. That said I have 27.5 2.8 Butchers on my HT sometimes, and they are fast.
    I got some bad ideas in my head.

  3. #3
    100% PRIME ALBERTA BEEF
    Reputation: mtnbkrmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    2,362
    Those results are surprising to me. I agree, however, with the first comment below the article - things may have been markedly different with the 2.3s mounted on a 27 mm id rim, as opposed to a 35.

    I need to give 2.6s another shot. I have tried them a few times now and on each occasion, I had much less fun on them than on my 2.3 Minions.

    Not sure if this is at odds with the article, but with the bigger tires, I was considerably more fatigued after sustained climbing. I need to re-read the article more closely when I have time, but I was left with the impression that there was zero downside to running 2.6s over 2.3s, INCLUDING WITH CLIMBING. That is 100% inconsistent with my prior experience. I felt those 2.6s on the Stumpjumper I had for 2 days at the top of each and every climb. They almost sucked the life out of me. On the downs, they were significantly tougher for me to get off the ground. "Planted" describes what I experienced, although being gassed at the summit may have had something to do with that as well.

    I really need to try 2.6s again. Everything I read seems to be at odds with what I experienced. Perhaps I just had a string of bad days with them.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,069
    This isn't a test of tire performance so much as it is Seb Stott's (the writer) performance on different tires on the trail he was riding. I believe that some people are going to be faster on plus tires on certain trails but the pros are faster on narrower tires. I believe Bruni won the DH World Championship this year on 2.3" tires. You have to take these articles with a grain of salt. Some people are going to be fine on plus tires and some people need DH casing tires.

  5. #5
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,998
    So he tested 2.3, 2.44, and 2.65" tires. I like the 2.6 just because of the extra safety factor.

  6. #6
    2x is underrated
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    This isn't a test of tire performance so much as it is Seb Stott's (the writer) performance on different tires on the trail he was riding. I believe that some people are going to be faster on plus tires on certain trails but the pros are faster on narrower tires. I believe Bruni won the DH World Championship this year on 2.3" tires. You have to take these articles with a grain of salt. Some people are going to be fine on plus tires and some people need DH casing tires.

    Agree 110%. My Maxxis 2.5 DHF actually grips better than my WTB 2.8 Ranger. More narrow tire, but larger knobs. Many, many variables.
    Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: quod Belgiae, quod Celtae, et quod Aquitainae.

  7. #7
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,998
    They always cut down the knobs on the 2.6 and 2.8 tires. I hate that.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    ...Some people are going to be fine on plus tires and some people need DH casing tires.
    Completely accurate, and while smooth is fast, fast also kills tires regardless of how smooth you are.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbkrmike View Post
    Those results are surprising to me. I agree, however, with the first comment below the article - things may have been markedly different with the 2.3s mounted on a 27 mm id rim, as opposed to a 35.

    I need to give 2.6s another shot. I have tried them a few times now and on each occasion, I had much less fun on them than on my 2.3 Minions.

    Not sure if this is at odds with the article, but with the bigger tires, I was considerably more fatigued after sustained climbing. I need to re-read the article more closely when I have time, but I was left with the impression that there was zero downside to running 2.6s over 2.3s, INCLUDING WITH CLIMBING. That is 100% inconsistent with my prior experience. I felt those 2.6s on the Stumpjumper I had for 2 days at the top of each and every climb. They almost sucked the life out of me. On the downs, they were significantly tougher for me to get off the ground. "Planted" describes what I experienced, although being gassed at the summit may have had something to do with that as well.

    I really need to try 2.6s again. Everything I read seems to be at odds with what I experienced. Perhaps I just had a string of bad days with them.
    Oddly enough I seem to get no downside running 2.5 DHF and Aggressors compared to 2.3. If anything even my fireroad climbs are faster. I figured it had to do with the larger diameter, but there are so many different factors that can contribute.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    410
    i think most riders(noobs to advanced) which is probably 90% of riders out there will be faster with 2.8" tires (with correct PSI!!) the higher volume is more forgiving for these riders.

    high skilled/amateur pros/park riders etc need DH sidewalls because of how fast/aggressive they ride.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    876
    The rim used was too wide for the 2.3 tire. It probably squared off the profile of the tire and made for more drag which decreased rolling resistance. Plus if you used the right width rim for the 2.3 tire it would also make it much lighter.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Stonerider View Post
    The rim used was too wide for the 2.3 tire. It probably squared off the profile of the tire and made for more drag which decreased rolling resistance. Plus if you used the right width rim for the 2.3 tire it would also make it much lighter.
    Yes, my thought as well. 2.3 on a narrower & lighter wheel must be faster up hill and def rolls faster. Still, for trailriding I still pick 2.4-2.6. I don't like the bouncy feel of 2.8+.

Similar Threads

  1. Tire size vs. Tube size
    By shmtastic in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-23-2014, 06:05 PM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-17-2012, 03:28 AM
  3. Tire Size V. Rim Size
    By sryanak in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-09-2011, 01:23 PM
  4. 700x37 tire size what tube size?
    By noobie39 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-11-2011, 04:01 PM
  5. Is size "Size: 28 x 2.00" a 29er tire?
    By finger51 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2011, 02:47 PM

Members who have read this thread: 171

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.