MTB Kid Posted June 16, 2009 Share Ok, guys, 2.1 is probably the most common, but keen to find out what tyre width and preference you have for your particular type of riding and bike. Seems to be a trend for bigger volume overseas - is SA there yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 16, 2009 Share I'm on 1.95's at the moment... don't have a problem with them yet, but haven't upgraded purely because of budgetary constraints. Looking at getting 2.2's when these are worn out... I'm also a chunky fella, and the 1.95's don't like that so much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa C Posted June 16, 2009 Share 2.2 at the front, thin 2.1 at the back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 16, 2009 Share answer me this... does the profile really make *that* much of a difference to grip? Thinking of getting a set of Nobby Nics, Nevegals or Small Block 8's... I ride in Tokai mainly, where the terrain is pretty diverse... Rock, sand, pebbles & mud... Would it make that much of a diff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTB Kid Posted June 16, 2009 Share Tks Guys, very interesting. @ cptmayhem - what do you mean by profile? There are alot of variables to consider when mixing a tyre with a rim shape/profile. Tyres also behave very differently when run at varied pressures. Generally, 2.1 has been the #1 choice for MTBers in SA, but things seem to be changing with riders wanting more traction/comfort. Also, tyre technology has improved and bigger tyres these days are not as heavy as before. So why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted June 16, 2009 Share in terms of the profile of the tire ie: 1.95; 2.1; 2.3 etc etc... I get the fact that it has a bigger surface area, and will have different effects in different conditions, but is it worth it to "upgrade" to a bigger (wider) profile? And yes - i know that the responses will be a tad subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowta Posted June 16, 2009 Share in terms of the profile of the tire ie: 1.95; 2.1; 2.3 etc etc... I get the fact that it has a bigger surface area' date=' and will have different effects in different conditions, but is it worth it to "upgrade" to a bigger (wider) profile? And yes - i know that the responses will be a tad subjective. [/quote'] Definately This is interesting readinghttp://www.bicicletta.co.za/Downloadable%20Docs/Rolling%20Resistance%20Eng%20illustrated.pdf Also more surface area=more grip, comfort, etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted June 16, 2009 Share in terms of the profile of the tire ie: 1.95; 2.1; 2.3 etc etc...I get the fact that it has a bigger surface area' date=' and will have different effects in different conditions, but is it worth it to "upgrade" to a bigger (wider) profile? And yes - i know that the responses will be a tad subjective.[/quote']DefinatelyThis is interesting readinghttp://www.bicicletta.co.za/Downloadable%20Docs/Rolling%20Resistance%20Eng%20illustrated.pdfAlso more surface area=more grip, comfort, etc.. oh, lordy, did you just mention rolling resistance?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mach7-7 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Hi guys. Lets not confuse profile with width. Width being your 2.1", 2.2, 2.4 etc. Profile being the height from the edge of the wheel rim to the top of the tyre knob. Profile is another figure which should read something like: 59-XXXX etc. obviously this will change from manufacturer to manufacturer based on their width measurements not all being the same. Eg: a conti 2.2" is very difficult to say a Kenda 2.2",especially when comparing UST models. There is no clear cut rule to how you measure a width of a tyre as various methods are used. I am running a Conti mountain King UST 2.2 on the front and it looks more like a 1.95 - 2.00" width. It has a much lower profile than the tyres which I have previously used but I have seen to cons to this so far. It sheds mud, water and anything in its way with ease. I would recommend this to anyone. I am still running a Specialized Captain Control 2.00 on the rear ( wider than the mountain king front with a bigger profile). I know the preference is to run wider front than rear, but in my case this works for the moment and resistance is negligable. When its time to replace, I will either fit a Mountain King or Race King 2.2" UST. (By the way, my wheels are 26's). My home trail is Tokai Forest and these tyres are wicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho! Posted May 27, 2010 Share Im currently running on maxxis 2.1's and thought about putting some Conti Moutain Kings 2.4's on for the tech stuff, does anyone know if it will fit a Giant Trace 3? It has a rockshox Tora fork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weight Weenie Posted May 27, 2010 Share Being Weight Weenie I would not go over a 2.2, so 2.0-2.2 is fine for me depending on the tyre. Had some bonties, 2.0 but low volume, now some maxxis 2.1 but high volume. Waiting for some 380g claimed 2.0 geax barro race tyres, but im guessing they gonna be skinny like a ramp model. but stans low pressure will sort comfort and grip out chop-chop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomvdP Posted May 27, 2010 Share surely you will notice a decrease in rolling resistance much more than a 200g decrease - and I remember reading an article by Schwalbe that basically showed how their larger volume tires had less rolling resistance.tom8932010-05-27 16:49:52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacho! Posted May 27, 2010 Share Im not into very long distances so a bit weight won't be the biggest of my worries, just rolling resistance. "Heavier tyres also increase the gyroscopic effect of the wheel, making the bike more stable on the ground or in the air." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaManiak Posted May 27, 2010 Share answer me this... does the profile really make *that* much of a difference to grip? Thinking of getting a set of Nobby Nics' date=' Nevegals or Small Block 8's... I ride in Tokai mainly, where the terrain is pretty diverse... Rock, sand, pebbles & mud... Would it make that much of a diff?[/quote'] Hey cptmayhem, It makes a big difference. It's not really about speed, or grip, but more what you can do with the tyre.The bigger tyres give you a bigger bufffer. If you are riding in Tokai, then coming down boulders for instance, you'll go about the same speed with either if you get it right, but you'll have much more room for error with a 2.25 vs 1.95. ( The same can be said of dual vs hardtail ).For tokai, try Bigger/Grippier on the front (ie. 2.25 Nobby Nic), and a bit smaller/faster on the rear (ie. Crossmark 2.1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capricorn Posted May 27, 2010 Share I ride between 2.5 and 2.35. mostly the former. If it's super gnarly, run with slightly higher pressure. but i generally run a lower than normal pressure, if only because the rim (Mavic EX 729) can take the pounding should i hit some hard edges at full tilt.If it's muddy or very sandy, I'd roll with spikes on 2.35. Better to slice thru that crap than float on top when using a wider width.Ninja: what do you mean by a bigger 'buffer'? and what 'errors' are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaManiak Posted May 28, 2010 Share things like hitting an unseen rock. you'll also feel the rear rim "hitting/banging" much sooner on rough ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now