What should I do about this poorly designed tire?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 106 of 106
  1. #1
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507

    What should I do about this poorly designed tire?

    With all this virus going around, this is the last thing I need in my life. This is a premium tire. It's like buying a Ferrari that claims 200mph top speed but it chokes out at 140mph. Agarro 27.5 2.6:

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails What should I do about this poorly designed tire?-agarro-27.5-2.jpg  


  2. #2
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,895
    depends or your end goal. you looking for better cornering? better braking? less rolling resistance?


  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,645
    Inflate to max psi and leave it over night. Should stretch some.

  4. #4
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,895
    derp, i misunderstood the question...


  5. #5
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Inflate to max psi and leave it over night. Should stretch some.
    Max psi is 35psi. I had it at 30psi overnight. Then I reduced it to 20 for riding pressure. This is the result.

  6. #6
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker. View Post
    depends or your end goal. you looking for better cornering? better braking? less rolling resistance?
    Traction on wet limestone. So I want a wide footprint, tacky, tire.

  7. #7
    RAKC
    Reputation: tigris99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    With all this virus going around, this is the last thing I need in my life. This is a premium tire. It's like buying a Ferrari that claims 200mph top speed but it chokes out at 140mph. Agarro 27.5 2.6:

    Welcome to mountain biking.

    Do your research before buying a tire. Few brands are true to size. Wtb (most of the time, their first plus tire was a joke) bontrager, schwalbe are the ones I know that usually are.

    Also depends on what rim your running. If your putting a 2.6 on a 24mm rim, ya not going to measure right at all.

    Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    I have some Vittoria tires and they are true to size. Then THIS happens. It's on a 31mm rim, so I think that's reasonable that it should be close to the ETRTO diameter of 65mm.

    A certain website is having a sale on Hans Dampf Addix soft tires for $24 each so I may go that route.

    Then I will maybe return this tire for a refund.

  9. #9
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    33,472
    What is your rim internal-size? That impacts how "big" the tire is.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  10. #10
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    31mm

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,082
    Ride it.

  12. #12
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,487
    Did you look at the ETRTO? Nothing to complain about if you relied on nonsense sizing.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  13. #13
    Hoolie Ghoulie on Strava.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,052
    Disappointing. Go for the refund. That is way smaller than what you were sold. however, THIS is the time to road burn to your trailhead. Crush that tire in 2 months and bin it.
    Buy American, save lives. (Tough for cyclists)

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    434
    If ya like the tire tread pattern and compound just run it. It will expand a couple mm in a week or two. Tire mfg's are sorta funny. I have a 2.35 Magic Mary on an i27 rim and it is 60mm wide. I also have on another set of wheels a 2.6 Specialized Eliminator on i30 rims and it is 61mm...? Both have been inflated for months, go figure.

  15. #15
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    UPDATE UPDATE

    After a night at riding pressure (20psi), it shrunk back down to 2.36.



    ETRTO is 65mm claimed, actual is 59.9mm.

    I'm leaning toward what hoolie said, refund. I just can't enjoy myself on a tire this small.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rngspnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    Traction on wet limestone. So I want a wide footprint, tacky, tire.
    No such thing as traction on wet limestone. Here in CENTEX all we have is limestone. It might as well be ice when it gets wet. I've been running an Aggressor 29x2.5 on rear of my bike it has better traction than most tires but on wet limestone all bets are off.
    2016 Evil Following V1
    2016 Dartmoor Primal+

  17. #17
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,940
    Return it if itís going to bug you. FWIW, I feel tire volume is a little over rated. But then again Iím running 2.6 tires and recently remounted the new Butcher because itís noticeably bigger and performs than the previous generation.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fredcook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by Rngspnr View Post
    No such thing as traction on wet limestone. Here in CENTEX all we have is limestone. It might as well be ice when it gets wet. I've been running an Aggressor 29x2.5 on rear of my bike it has better traction than most tires but on wet limestone all bets are off.
    I was about to say the same. Ah, Texas Hill Country limestone. But the pink granite sure is grippy!

    TylerVernon, like others have said, different brands/models of tires just measure differently. Some advertise measurement by the casing, others by the knobs. Different tires mount differently on different rims. Bottom line is, it's never apples to apples.

    I've had acceptable rear tire wet limestone performance on a WTB Trail Boss with their light/high grip compound (they have 4 different compound combinations available). But I think the best luck I've had on wet limestone over the years were Kenda Nevegal's, also on the rear. Can't remember which compound though. For a wet limestone front tire... never had one that really inspires confidence.

    If it were me, considering the difficulty gripping wet limestone, I'd just wear out what you have and replace 'em with the next best thing being advertised.
    You didn't quit riding because you're old, you're old because you quit riding.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    9
    Looks like your calipers are between the lugs.. what does it measure when you have them on the lugs?

  20. #20
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    10,471
    A wise person once said expectations and disappointments go hand in hand.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

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

  21. #21
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,487
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post

    ETRTO is 65mm claimed, actual is 59.9mm.
    That sucks.

    I wonder if this is the source of the measurement problem-

    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    8,725
    Personally, I think they did you favor. 2.3-2.4 is the proper width for an mtb tire.
    What, me worry?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    165
    Mine are 65mm wide on 34i rims, so not exactly 2.6, but they come close. The barzo 2.6 was 68mm wide on the same rim
    Bird zero AM with mt7 danny mcaskill, eagle nextie and some fun bits

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,641
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    UPDATE UPDATE

    After a night at riding pressure (20psi), it shrunk back down to 2.36.



    ETRTO is 65mm claimed, actual is 59.9mm.

    I'm leaning toward what hoolie said, refund. I just can't enjoy myself on a tire this small.
    Yeah, get your money back.

  25. #25
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,684
    They'll let you return a tire that's already been mounted?
    Quote Originally Posted by Forest Rider View Post
    Yeah, what Train Wreck said. Trails are ruined because e-bikes are there.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    Personally, I think they did you favor. 2.3-2.4 is the proper width for an mtb tire.
    Ha, well put!

    As far as I'm concerned the Agarro is the best rear tire I've ever ran, and I've ran a lot of them. Had some high end other tires on the shelf that were next in line, starting to sell them off as I feel no need to continue searching for a rear.

    Not sure why I was so resistant to try any Vittoria for so long because I tried the Agarro and then the Martello and was blown away both times. The Agarro is my rear tire, for the front it's between the E22 & the Martello. eager to try the production version of the E22.

    You should go by performance, not by the missing 1/4" size on your narrow wheel.

  27. #27
    Single Track Mind
    Reputation: mountainbikeloco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    491
    That's odd. I have this same tire mounted to an i9 315c and it measures at exactly 2.6". I measured at the widest point outside the knobs. The pic appears to measure from inside the knobs.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    86
    I would measure from the outside of the knobs as others have mentioned and weigh the tire. I wonder if it's a measurement issue, a misprint (I've seen it on car tires but never bike tires), or just plain wrong.

    Like you, I have had a few vittoria tires and one of the things I like about them is that they are usually more accurate than other mfrs I've used...

  29. #29
    Hitching a ride
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,191
    Not sure why knob width matters. You can add rubber to the outside of a knob that never touches the ground or affects performance in any way.

  30. #30
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    Not sure why knob width matters. You can add rubber to the outside of a knob that never touches the ground or affects performance in any way.
    If the knobs are too tall they won't fit inside the frame.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  31. #31
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,190
    took an arrow to the knee on wet limestone
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  32. #32
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Ok I measured the outside knob width. Got 2.37in. I weighed the tire before I mounted and it was 955g. So it has the 2.6" weight without the advantages of being 2.6".

  33. #33
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    That sucks.I wonder if this is the source of the measurement problem-
    Interdasting. Using his rule, if I put it on a 35mm rim it would still be 2.5mm under ETRTO. I would need to go to 40mm. My tire didn't come with a booklet explaining anything.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,957
    Main thing OP needs to learn is that in the real world, actual 2.6 tires suck. They are really quite bad ime with many brands.
    You ride the tire, not a caliper measurement, just go ride the tire.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,761
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    With all this virus going around, this is the last thing I need in my life. This is a premium tire. It's like buying a Ferrari that claims 200mph top speed but it chokes out at 140mph. Agarro 27.5 2.6:


    I'm sort of stuck on the fact that people are dying slow, agonizing deaths from an invisible, insidious pathogen, and you're somehow conflating your new toy being undersized by a few mm's as similar?

    Get a grip. You might well be the luckiest human on the planet if that's what you've got to complain about.

  36. #36
    cmg
    cmg is offline
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,497
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    I just can't enjoy myself on a tire this small.
    imo the problem is you, not the tyre
    always mad and usually drunk......

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,418
    I'm assuming he meant there's enough bad going on right now and none of us need any more at all. But who knows.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    185
    I'm always amazed at how so many people come up with different measurements for tires despite only minor difference in rim width.
    I have to admit however, that is really narrow considering what others have measured. Possibly mis-labeled?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,134
    Bontrager XR5 2.6 measures 67mm at the outside of the lugs

    It's my 3 season front tire on my 29" AM HT.

    I only bought it b/c it pares up nicely with the 65mm wide 2.5 Aggressor I run out back again, 3 season rear option.

    Now for Winter...

    Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: natas1321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    650
    If it's that much of an issue to you I would replace it.

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    Ok I measured the outside knob width. Got 2.37in. I weighed the tire before I mounted and it was 955g. So it has the 2.6" weight without the advantages of being 2.6".
    You have 2.388" between the knobs and 2.37" on the knobs? Sounds like some user error going on here.

  42. #42
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    There's no user error. If you read the thread you'd see that the casing shrunk over night when I left it at riding pressure.

  43. #43
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by cmg View Post
    imo the problem is you, not the tyre
    Your opinion is baseless. The tire was advertised to a spec that it does not meet. For a bicycle tire that costs as much as a car tire, and this is a premium product with premium expectations. Not some wire bead $10 oem rubber.

  44. #44
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by JaxMustang50 View Post
    I'm always amazed at how so many people come up with different measurements for tires despite only minor difference in rim width.
    I have to admit however, that is really narrow considering what others have measured. Possibly mis-labeled?
    Maybe mislabeled, but the weight is spot on for the 2.6.

  45. #45
    cmg
    cmg is offline
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,497
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    Your opinion is baseless. The tire was advertised to a spec that it does not meet. For a bicycle tire that costs as much as a car tire, and this is a premium product with premium expectations. Not some wire bead $10 oem rubber.
    first of all stop buying cheap arse car ryres, your familys life may depend on it.

    Second, if your riding isnt fun because your tyre is 5mm too skinny, well then imo you're doing wrong
    always mad and usually drunk......

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    There's no user error. If you read the thread you'd see that the casing shrunk over night when I left it at riding pressure.
    So the tire shrunk from 2.388" to 2.36" at the casing and measures 2.37" over the knobs? That would mean that the nobs only stick out .005" from the casing when looking from the top down. (about the thickness of a sheet of paper, maybe two) You can clearly see in your picture that the knobs stick out more than .005".

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    9
    What should I do about this poorly designed tire?-2020-04-24-11_29_46-what-should-i-do-about-poorly-designed-tire_-mtbr.jpg

    The red lines are equal length, about 0.1". One is on the caliper scale, the other is going from the tire casing to the tip of the tire knob. By that math, you're looking at 2.588" for your tire width over the knobs. Maybe 2.56" if it shrunk to 2.36" which technically rounds up to 2.6".

  48. #48
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by cmg View Post
    first of all stop buying cheap arse car ryres, your familys life may depend on it.

    Second, if your riding isnt fun because your tyre is 5mm too skinny, well then imo you're doing wrong
    5mm is a lot in tires.

    Well, my day just went from mediocre to moderately annoying. I mounted up my new Tioga Edge 22 2.5 tire and it only measures 2.35in on a 35mm rim!

    So I walked all the way across the driveway to my shop and got out my Mitutoyo calipers to calibrate my cheap bicycle calipers. Spot on, within 2 thousandths.

    I really appreciate you guys giving me a shoulder to cry on. Other people just can't understand the struggle.

  49. #49
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by dulken View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2020-04-24 11_29_46-What should I do about this poorly designed tire_- Mtbr.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	38.9 KB 
ID:	1327093

    The red lines are equal length, about 0.1". One is on the caliper scale, the other is going from the tire casing to the tip of the tire knob. By that math, you're looking at 2.588" for your tire width over the knobs. Maybe 2.56" if it shrunk to 2.36" which technically rounds up to 2.6".
    Well professor, you're leaving out some key details that affect your conclusions.

    As seen here, if we take the arc of the edge of the knobbles (green line), and compare with the centerline of the tire (orange line) by triangulating (red triangle) the hypotenuse, the resultant angle is approximately 30 degrees. This angled perspective creates the illusion that the knobbles overhang the calipers, when in fact they do not.

    Name:  Agarro analysis.jpg
Views: 161
Size:  49.0 KB

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    Well professor, you're leaving out some key details that affect your conclusions.

    As seen here, if we take the arc of the edge of the knobbles (green line), and compare with the centerline of the tire (orange line) by triangulating (red triangle) the hypotenuse, the resultant angle is approximately 30 degrees. This angled perspective creates the illusion that the knobbles overhang the calipers, when in fact they do not.

    Name:  Agarro analysis.jpg
Views: 161
Size:  49.0 KB
    Everything that you just said is completely wrong.. regardless of your questionable graphic and logic, 2.37" over knobs - 2.36" between knobs =.010"/2= you dont have .005" knobs on your tire.

  51. #51
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    The knobs are actually 5mm. You are off by a factor of exactly 1000.

  52. #52
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,684
    Whats the status on the refund? Or exchange? Clearly you aren't happy with the tire
    Quote Originally Posted by Forest Rider View Post
    Yeah, what Train Wreck said. Trails are ruined because e-bikes are there.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    165
    20200424_183800 by joost nijland, on Flickr

    mine on 34internal at 26psi
    Bird zero AM with mt7 danny mcaskill, eagle nextie and some fun bits

  54. #54
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by cmg View Post
    imo the problem is you, not the tyre
    Geez, can't you see this is a serious problem. I think we should get the Space Force involved pronto before things get outta hand.

    Name:  meany.jpg
Views: 149
Size:  24.9 KB
    :nono: :thumbsup:

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,642
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    Your opinion is baseless. The tire was advertised to a spec that it does not meet. For a bicycle tire that costs as much as a car tire, and this is a premium product with premium expectations. Not some wire bead $10 oem rubber.
    You should start a class action lawsuit. Force tire manufacturers to list the tires measurement on every possible rim.

    And to blunt, you're full of it. If you hadn't measured it, you wouldn't have known on the trail.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,968
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    UPDATE UPDATE

    After a night at riding pressure (20psi), it shrunk back down to 2.36.



    ETRTO is 65mm claimed, actual is 59.9mm.

    I'm leaning toward what hoolie said, refund. I just can't enjoy myself on a tire this small.
    The post is everything that is wrong with the current MTB scene. Heck, it may represent everything wrong with the world...
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,418
    A 2.6 tire should measure at least 2.6 on any approved rim. I think if they're saying 30mm is the minimum, thats where it should measure 2.6. I sold my 2.3 purgs because they measured like 2.05.

    While I agree that true 2.3-2.4 is just generally a better size, its fair to request getting what you actually spent your money for.

    Imagine ordering a cheeseburger with bacon, and they give you a chicken sandwich because they think its better.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    The knobs are actually 5mm. You are off by a factor of exactly 1000.
    Metrology and unit conversion look like they might not be a familiar topic for you.

    You're off by a factor of 25.4.

    You in fact came up with .005" (inches) knobs based off of YOUR measurements of 2.37" (inches) and 2.36" (inches).

    If your knobs are 5mm (millimeters) per side. That is equivalent to 0.196" (inches). If you add the knob from each side together and your initial shrunken 'measurement' 2.36" (inches) + 0.196" (inches) + 0.196" (inches) = You actually have a 2.75" tire.

    Now you should stomp your feet and start a thread about how your tire is too wide and you want someone to do something about it.

  59. #59
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    10,471
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    Imagine ordering a cheeseburger with bacon, and they give you a chicken sandwich because they think its better.
    Yeahbutt... chicken really IS better. With melted Swiss cheese... mmmm.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

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

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,642
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    A 2.6 tire should measure at least 2.6 on any approved rim. I think if they're saying 30mm is the minimum, thats where it should measure 2.6. I sold my 2.3 purgs because they measured like 2.05.

    While I agree that true 2.3-2.4 is just generally a better size, its fair to request getting what you actually spent your money for.

    Imagine ordering a cheeseburger with bacon, and they give you a chicken sandwich because they think its better.
    Pretty poor analogy. A better one is going in and whining like a child that the dough for your sub only expanded to 11.99'' instead of the advertised 12'' even though you received exactly the same weight in dough.

    It's not like the OP was ripped off and got less tire than others that ordered the same tire.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  61. #61
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,895
    love the goons who blame their lack of riding prowess on their gear...


  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,418
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    Pretty poor analogy. A better one is going in and whining like a child that the dough for your sub only expanded to 11.99'' instead of the advertised 12'' even though you received exactly the same weight in dough.

    It's not like the OP was ripped off and got less tire than others that ordered the same tire.
    But certainly you acknowledge that at some point of being shorted, its really not right, right?

    If you ordered a 12 inch sub and got a 6 inch sub, its not what you asked for.

    We're pretty much always dealing with fractions of an inch these days. The realistic range is 2.2-2.6 between the biggest and smallest "normal" tires... so 0.4" between biggest and smallest.

    That dude was 50% of the range off what he was sold.

    Like many have said (and I basically agree with), 2.3-2.4's are awesome! I'll gladly pay full price for a 2.3-2.4 tire. If you're making 2.3's, just say its a 2.3.

    On one hand, thats cool we now know that those of us who want a 2.35 can buy a 2.6 in that tire model... but jeez, how hard is it to print a ".35" instead of a ".6"?

  63. #63
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus View Post
    Yeahbutt... chicken really IS better. With melted Swiss cheese... mmmm.
    =sParty
    For sure! Throw in some ham. Yes, I'll pay extra.
    :nono: :thumbsup:

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,418
    Chicken sandwiches are delicious though...

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    36
    I kind of have to agree with the first poster if I am paying for a certian tire size it should be close to that. It would be like asking a foot long chicken parm with eggs and getting a chicken parm with eggs on a 10in roll that's about to go stale.

  66. #66
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,190
    show us the label and markings on the sidewall ....so far without seeing that...
    ...ya know...variations happen yes this sounds WAY off
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,418
    That would be hilarious if he had a 2.35 stamped tire

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    That would be hilarious if he had a 2.35 stamped tire
    then he would complain that it weighs as much as a 2.6 tire
    (he's not wrong)

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,957
    No need to measure width as I can always tell when I got a TRUE 2.6 because the tires bounce all over the trail like an overinflated basket ball as it skips along.
    The Agarro really is a rad rear tire. Just had my 4rd one delivered as the last one is getting a bit beat. First rear tire I've ever been truly satisfied with.
    Selling off my stockpile of new rear tires in waiting. I found 'the one '.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  70. #70
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by Train Wreck View Post
    Whats the status on the refund? Or exchange? Clearly you aren't happy with the tire
    I spoke with the lbs and they said I can return it. I took it off and got it cleaned up, but I didn't make it by today because I was trying out my Edge 22 until late.

  71. #71
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    That would be hilarious if he had a 2.35 stamped tire
    It would be hilarious, but also good news, because then I could get the 2.6 version and be on my way

  72. #72
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by 127.0.0.1 View Post
    show us the label and markings on the sidewall ....so far without seeing that...
    ...ya know...variations happen yes this sounds WAY off
    Then I will have to walk out to my truck and open the door. What do you want to know? The tire is labelled 27.5x2.6 with ETRTO of 65mm.

  73. #73
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by dulken View Post
    Metrology and unit conversion look like they might not be a familiar topic for you.

    You're off by a factor of 25.4.

    You in fact came up with .005" (inches) knobs based off of YOUR measurements of 2.37" (inches) and 2.36" (inches).

    If your knobs are 5mm (millimeters) per side. That is equivalent to 0.196" (inches). If you add the knob from each side together and your initial shrunken 'measurement' 2.36" (inches) + 0.196" (inches) + 0.196" (inches) = You actually have a 2.75" tire.

    Now you should stomp your feet and start a thread about how your tire is too wide and you want someone to do something about it.
    Hmm, ok, I missed the """ after your measurement. So that means you are only off by a factor of 39. Regardless, the knobs are about the same width as the casing. Not that it matters. Like someone pointed out, extra rubber hanging off the edge only affects clearance, not performance.

  74. #74
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    You should start a class action lawsuit. Force tire manufacturers to list the tires measurement on every possible rim.

    And to blunt, you're full of it. If you hadn't measured it, you wouldn't have known on the trail.
    Oh so I'm full of it because I measured a product advertised to be one way but was far short of the claims? That comment doesn't make any sense unless you dance around camp fires to cure diseases.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,494
    Set it on fire and put the video on youtube.
    Be sure to express your anger and disappointment with lots of creative cursing.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    Hmm, ok, I missed the """ after your measurement. So that means you are only off by a factor of 39. Regardless, the knobs are about the same width as the casing. Not that it matters. Like someone pointed out, extra rubber hanging off the edge only affects clearance, not performance.
    The 'extra rubber that's hanging off of the edge that only affects clearance, not performance' does matter because that is how tires are measured/categorized, by objective clearance, not subjective performance. Would you buy a frame with clearance for 2.4" tires and try to put 2.6" on them because they measure 2.36" at the casing? That is a rhetorical question, I know you would.

  77. #77
    West Chester, PA
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,828
    This thread has it all... Skill doubting, corona virus shaming, car tire snobbery, measurement tool calibration controversy. And yet, no one said "ID" to describe rim width. I'm so proud of you all I'm on the verge of tears

  78. #78
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by 92gli View Post
    This thread has it all... Skill doubting, corona virus shaming, car tire snobbery, measurement tool calibration controversy. And yet, no one said "ID" to describe rim width. I'm so proud of you all I'm on the verge of tears
    Don't forget the incoherent babbling from someone's seldom used troll account.

    Closure: I took the tire back yesterday.

    Thanks everyone for their support during this difficult time.

  79. #79
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,580
    The world wants to know - did you at least get a chicken sandwich while you were out? #priorities
    :nono: :thumbsup:

  80. #80
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by noapathy View Post
    The world wants to know - did you at least get a chicken sandwich while you were out? #priorities
    I got a Subway spicy Italian but had difficulty eating it because of the mask I was forced to wear.

    Mike was in a bad mood this morning. It appears someone pissed in his Cheerios and swiped his good humor while he was savoring the taste.

    What should I do about this poorly designed tire?-mikesee.jpg

  81. #81
    BOOM goes the dynamite!
    Reputation: noapathy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    I got a Subway spicy Italian but had difficulty eating it because of the mask I was forced to wear.

    Mike was in a bad mood this morning. It appears someone pissed in his Cheerios and swiped his good humor while he was savoring the taste.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mikesee.jpg 
Views:	68 
Size:	18.2 KB 
ID:	1328195
    Problem with lunch? Of course you did. Also, at Mike's comment - perfect response about taking things too seriously.

    I went riding. It was nice. I hope you get to go do that, too.
    :nono: :thumbsup:

  82. #82
    cmg
    cmg is offline
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,497
    Getting new Grips wont fix anything????
    always mad and usually drunk......

  83. #83
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Let's see how these do.

    What should I do about this poorly designed tire?-20200623_172032.jpg

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RS VR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,487
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    But certainly you acknowledge that at some point of being shorted, its really not right, right?

    If you ordered a 12 inch sub and got a 6 inch sub, its not what you asked for.

    We're pretty much always dealing with fractions of an inch these days. The realistic range is 2.2-2.6 between the biggest and smallest "normal" tires... so 0.4" between biggest and smallest.

    That dude was 50% of the range off what he was sold.

    Like many have said (and I basically agree with), 2.3-2.4's are awesome! I'll gladly pay full price for a 2.3-2.4 tire. If you're making 2.3's, just say its a 2.3.

    On one hand, thats cool we now know that those of us who want a 2.35 can buy a 2.6 in that tire model... but jeez, how hard is it to print a ".35" instead of a ".6"?
    Lol...that's how I feel if my tire does not measure what is advertised. I have a Spesh Eliminator in a 27.5x"2.6". It barely measured 2.4 (knob to knob) on some 29mm IW rims. It's also 100gr heavier than advertised. It's just about the same size as a 2.35 Hans Dampf.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,448
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    Let's see how these do.
    You could their Mota tire in 2.6 (65mm) looks to be a specific wet tire. Do any manufacturers do durometer ratings anymore?
    I'd rather a soft compound 2.35 than a hard compound 2.6.

  86. #86
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Mota is wet conditions but more for mud; I want wet rock.

    Martello 2.8 on 31mm rim at 35psi: 2.56mm wide casing. 1080g weight.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,448
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    Mota is wet conditions but more for mud; I want wet rock.

    Martello 2.8 on 31mm rim at 35psi: 2.56mm wide casing. 1080g weight.
    I run high 20s on smaller wheels, 35psi is up there for trail riding. That's race DH pressure.

  88. #88
    Trail Gnome
    Reputation: Dark Meat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,197
    Why do you need a tire wider than that? Looks legit

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    245
    I feel your pain. Some people do need / want a wider, higher volume tires. No matter that some say that 2.4 tires are better or that every tire manufacturer has their own width standards. When I buy 3.0", 2.8" or 2.6" tire I expect it to be true to size on approved rim width. If you're shopping for size 13 shoe you expect to get correct size, not a "better" one but a 2 sizes smaller.

  90. #90
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudguard View Post
    I run high 20s on smaller wheels, 35psi is up there for trail riding. That's race DH pressure.
    I'll reduce to riding pressure and measure again. Rear rim is 31mm, front will be 36mm when it arrives. Should be exactly 2.6".

    Quote Originally Posted by Mebaru View Post
    I feel your pain. Some people do need / want a wider, higher volume tires. No matter that some say that 2.4 tires are better or that every tire manufacturer has their own width standards. When I buy 3.0", 2.8" or 2.6" tire I expect it to be true to size on approved rim width. If you're shopping for size 13 shoe you expect to get correct size, not a "better" one but a 2 sizes smaller.
    Agreed. It's a trail conditions variable - less improved trails with random sticks and rocks laying everywhere are safer to ride on wider, lower pressure tires. Notice I said safer - there's some obsession with "faster" with some posters. I ride 2.4" on some trails, 2.6 on others.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,900
    Tires have always been all over the place with sizing. It would be great if there was standardized sizing across all tires, but we are talking about the bike industry.

    My guess as to why some 2.6's measure small is to keep weight in check. Pretty much any proper 2.6 is going to be pretty heavy unless it's made of toilet paper. Stated weight has a big impact on sales. Undersized 2.6's will probably out sell actual 2.6's for that reason. Just my guess. Whatever it is, it's lame. The number on the sidewall should be accurate either at installation, or full stretch. Anything else is sloppy, or deliberately misleading.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    838
    This was a case of Vittoria occasionally has issues with their sizing / labeling. It was too small. Gregnash has had a similar problem. I don't think any 2.6 should measure 2.38 on a 31 IW rim......


    Most tires measure pretty close to their ERTO measurement.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by cassieno View Post
    This was a case of Vittoria occasionally has issues with their sizing / labeling. It was too small. Gregnash has had a similar problem. I don't think any 2.6 should measure 2.38 on a 31 IW rim......
    Vittoria has both sizing and quality issues. My buddy bought a pair of Martello G2 29x2.6 and they were both undersized and had different size (one was even smaller than 2.4") with different weight. Maybe this issues exist only with 2.6" tires because 2.4" have a lot of positive reviews.

  94. #94
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    At 15 psi, 31mm rim, the "2.8" is 2.55" at the casing. On a 36mm rim it should be right at 2.6.

    Martello 2.6=2.4. 2.8 = 2.6.
    Vittoria = Specialized.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mudguard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,448
    I do wonder if manufacturers simply have the measurement with the tire flat? I mean there doesn't seem to be an actual standard as to where a tire is measured is there? I might go measure some tires that are sitting around..

    Edit. Scratch that. Just measured two identical tires, one on the bike, one off (Minion DHRII in 2.3), and they were both 58mm out-most knob to out-most knob, which is the stated ETRTO.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudguard View Post
    I do wonder if manufacturers simply have the measurement with the tire flat? I mean there doesn't seem to be an actual standard as to where a tire is measured is there? I might go measure some tires that are sitting around..

    Edit. Scratch that. Just measured two identical tires, one on the bike, one off (Minion DHRII in 2.3), and they were both 58mm out-most knob to out-most knob, which is the stated ETRTO.
    I have a Michelin Wild AM 27.5x2.6" mounted on a 30mm rim for a couple of weeks, at 30psi it's 67mm/2.63" across the tread.
    Doesn't help the OP, but shows they don't all lie...

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RxSub's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerVernon View Post
    I have some Vittoria tires and they are true to size. Then THIS happens. It's on a 31mm rim, so I think that's reasonable that it should be close to the ETRTO diameter of 65mm.

    A certain website is having a sale on Hans Dampf Addix soft tires for $24 each so I may go that route.

    Then I will maybe return this tire for a refund.
    Kind of obvious but... 31 mm internal width, right?

    Enviado desde mi Redmi Note 7 mediante Tapatalk
    Excuse my english, it's not the best

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,957
    Measure at the tread, not the casing.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  99. #99
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by RxSub View Post
    Kind of obvious but... 31 mm internal width, right?
    Yes, all my listed widths are internal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Measure at the tread, not the casing.
    But why?

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,957
    Cause that's how wide the tire is, and frankly the standard. At least give us both numbers.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Cause that's how wide the tire is, and frankly the standard. At least give us both numbers.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    🙌🤦*♂️👍

  102. #102
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Cause that's how wide the tire is, and frankly the standard. At least give us both numbers.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    It's the standard for frame clearance. I can't see how it affects performance. The knobs are 2.63" on the wide ones and 2.43" on the narrow ones so the average is 2.53".

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,957
    The standard for frame clearance is the widest point on the tire.
    So the new tire on a 31mm ID wheel is 2.63" before it's even stretched.
    You got what you paid for imo.
    On a 45mm ID wheel which it's designed for it would measure over 2.75".

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  104. #104
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    It's already looking pretty square. I wouldn't want to go with a rim over 40mm.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,957
    People make too big of a deal about the shape of a tire when it's not being ridden.
    All tires conform and look different when actually ridden down the trail.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  106. #106
    Rider
    Reputation: TylerVernon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    507
    I can certainly tell the difference between profiles. There's a balance between rounded and square, a place where the bike leans effortlessly onto its side knobs, but not so round that you have to crank it too far over for side grip. Right now the Edge 22 is the best feeling for that on a 34mm rim.

Similar Threads

  1. Is this ramp poorly designed for 27.5+ tires?
    By skydve76 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-02-2019, 08:48 PM
  2. Poorly cut steerer tube by LBS - What would you do???
    By CannondaleJunkie in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-22-2015, 08:33 AM
  3. Many Forums are Poorly Labeled
    By Soupboy in forum Midwest - IL, IN, OH, KY, IA, MO, MI
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-22-2012, 08:22 AM
  4. my wfo demo went poorly
    By fast540 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-04-2012, 05:31 PM
  5. High Roller 2.1 UST rear climbs poorly, need a tire recommendation
    By morganfletcher in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-24-2006, 04:45 PM

Members who have read this thread: 298

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.