# Single Speed Tires (Recommendations)



## gstahl (Dec 20, 2003)

Looking for recommendations as to what tires and sizes folks are using on their single speeds. I have used Resolutions until recently but looking for a change as I build a new single speed (reso's are a bit squirrelly up front in corners and loose traction in the back pretty quickly when worn). Looking for 26" info but all opinions are interesting.

For me I am riding in NorCal (Demo, Skeggs, SG, etc).

(I have culled out the interesting combinations from the wheel and tire forum as well as the Norcal one but I am interested in what fellow single speeders have to say).

Thanks,
Geoff


----------



## nbrennan (Oct 31, 2006)

the rubber ones. 
I use conti vertical 2.3s, i think.
btw, cull is a transitive verb. I'm not sure why I decided to mention that.


----------



## bui (Mar 16, 2007)

I like the Conti Vertical Pros too. 2.3 of course.

IRC Mythos XC are good tires too, although a tad skinny at 2.1....


----------



## gstahl (Dec 20, 2003)

nbrennan said:


> btw, cull is a transitive verb. I'm not sure why I decided to mention that.


Better Mr. Grammar-Police???


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

Mutano 2.4


----------



## flipnidaho (Aug 10, 2004)

i've been liking the WW 2.55LT's up front and Mutano 2.4's in the back. Both light (relatively) and high volume


----------



## Simpleton (May 3, 2004)

flipnidaho said:


> i've been liking the WW 2.55LT's up front and Mutano 2.4's in the back. Both light (relatively) and high volume


Me too. Thanks for making me feel completely unoriginal


----------



## EDDIE JONES (Mar 26, 2005)

Schwalbe Alberts. Best tire on the market


----------



## CB2 (May 7, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Mutano 2.4


Mutanoraptor 2.4's definitely were my favorite 26" tire.
High volume, light, fast rolling, and descent traction in all conditions I threw at it (rode them from Winter through Summer).
Another 26" tire I was experimenting with was the Panaracer MX Razor 2.3. Similar to the Mutanoraptor, but a little faster rolling. I only rode that in the Summer though.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

26" IRC Freedom cross or trail bear, whatever. They are 2.2's or so and cheap as all get out. Check 'em out. They Stan's up all real nice like and are hardy and strong like grizzly Adams. 

Plus they are cheap. Did I mention that? Full height knob grippiness. Works gangbusters in the desert southwest. And they are cheap-o-rama. I got mine for $16 each kevlar bead. Dang.


----------



## BikeMojo (Jan 6, 2005)

flipnidaho said:


> i've been liking the WW 2.55LT's up front and Mutano 2.4's in the back. Both light (relatively) and high volume


That is a great combo.

The MutanoRaptor 2.4 makes for a sketchy front tire IMHO.


----------



## mjcort27 (Sep 19, 2005)

From NOR Cal too... I run Panaracer Fire AM 2.3 Pro front and Panaracer Fire XC 2.1 Pro non UST Tubeless with Stans. I love the bigger tire up front with more aggressive tracks.
I ride in Auburn, Ca...and Eldorado Hills, Ca.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Nevegal for me. I run it in both 2.1 and 2.35 sizes. They're reasonably light and work extremely well for the mid-Atlantic terrain. They simply don't slip when I'm grinding up a hill, and it's great having confidence like that in your tires. Stick-E up front and DTC in the back. They corner very well to, and they slide predictably.


----------



## gstahl (Dec 20, 2003)

seems like folks like high volume tires. Thoughts on a narrow rear tire (better for winter, rolling)???

I usually use a slightly smaller rear but I am more in the 2.1 camp than the 2.3 camp (like 2.3 up front and 2.1 in back, vice the 2.5/2.3).

Interesting, thanks for the opinions, I need to get the 2.5/2.3 thing a try.


----------



## cazloco (Apr 6, 2005)

*Oregon Winter Tire*

Gonna be slapping on the 1.9 TrailRakers all around pretty soon. Damn fine mud tire. Damn fine.

Caz


----------



## ATBScott (Jun 4, 2006)

I'm coming from the 29" standpoint - but have been running a Resolution in front and a Exi in the rear. As things start to get goopy, I think I will be trying the Michelin AT 29 x 2.0 - in 26" they make this as a 2.0 and a 2.2. A friend of mine has the 2.2 on his 26" ride and they work well about everywhere and they don't collect mud. Thinking a 2.0 will be a great winter tire.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

singlespeed tires? seriously? or was that just so that you could ask about tires without having to brave a different forum?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

sean salach said:


> singlespeed tires? seriously? or was that just so that you could ask about tires without having to brave a different forum?


I can think of two things that a singlespeeder might be particularly intersted in when looking for a tire. For myself, I want a tire that will maintain traction when I am really torqueing up a hill. Others may also want a fast rolling tire to help maintain momentum.


----------



## gstahl (Dec 20, 2003)

sean salach said:


> singlespeed tires? seriously? or was that just so that you could ask about tires without having to brave a different forum?


Whatever dude. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Why not single speed tires? Single speeding is a bit of different beast when it comes to tires, just like some may ask about all mountain or downhill tires, I suspect one would not get the same answer for all those questions.

FYI, I have read the posts in the wheel and tire forum, nothing new would be found by asking, again, what tires do folks recommend. Want to see what fellow single speeders are running.

...and you've been here what 2 months? Wow amazing, can't imagine how much more of an expert you will be in two more months.


----------



## Carebear (May 6, 2004)

I find that the best tire on my SS, as with every bike I own, differs with the terrain and conditions. In fact, my tire choice is based much more on terrain than the bike I'm riding.

I tend to be a bit lazy and don't like to have to change things on any bike when I can avoid it. With that in mind, I have found that I keep going back to the Maxxis Advantage for most conditions. When riding in sandy terrain I prefer the Larson TTs.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

gstahl said:


> Whatever dude. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Why not single speed tires? Single speeding is a bit of different beast when it comes to tires, just like some may ask about all mountain or downhill tires, I suspect one would not get the same answer for all those questions.
> 
> FYI, I have read the posts in the wheel and tire forum, nothing new would be found by asking, again, what tires do folks recommend. Want to see what fellow single speeders are running.
> 
> ...and you've been here what 2 months? Wow amazing, can't imagine how much more of an expert you will be in two more months.


so, what you're saying, is that someones knowledge and expertise when it comes to anything cycling related is entirely based on how long they have been a member of mtbr?

peanutbutterbreath: pedalling up a hill in the granny gear puts more torque on the tire than grinding up it on a singlespeed. the reason we lose traction(i've been riding nothing but ss for going on 9 years now) is weight distribution. it's more difficult to keep your weight where it need to be all the time when you have to move your body around more to manipulate your gear.

tire selection is entirely regional, terrain and condition based. xc, all mountain/freeride, trials and downhill, are all definded by terrain, not gearing choice.

but that's just the opinion of someone with 2 months of mtbr experience, so what do i know.


----------



## gstahl (Dec 20, 2003)

sean salach said:


> so, what you're saying, is that someones knowledge and expertise when it comes to anything cycling related is entirely based on how long they have been a member of mtbr?
> 
> peanutbutterbreath: pedalling up a hill in the granny gear puts more torque on the tire than grinding up it on a singlespeed. the reason we lose traction(i've been riding nothing but ss for going on 9 years now) is weight distribution. it's more difficult to keep your weight where it need to be all the time when you have to move your body around more to manipulate your gear.
> 
> ...


No, actually I am implying that you did not listen when your mother told you "if you can't say something nice then don't say anything".

If you do not like the discussion, just don't join it. Your argument clearly says that riding a single speed puts different demands on tires (due to weight distribution, as you claim) thus seems that asking about tires is a valid question.

... lets back track...

You stated that I was asking "just so that you could ask about tires without having to brave a different forum". In my opening post I said "(I have culled out the interesting combinations from the wheel and tire forum as well as the Norcal one but I am interested in what fellow single speeders have to say)." Pretty clear that this is simply to see what single speeders have to say (which seems about as interesting as a good carbon riser or Bike seats)

Not sure what is unclear here, you seem to not personally like the topic, so why not just ignore it?


----------



## macleod323 (Aug 5, 2007)

I run the Maxxis Hookworms 2.5 when I'm in urban assault mode.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

sean salach said:


> peanutbutterbreath: pedalling up a hill in the granny gear puts more torque on the tire than grinding up it on a singlespeed. the reason we lose traction(i've been riding nothing but ss for going on 9 years now) is weight distribution. it's more difficult to keep your weight where it need to be all the time when you have to move your body around more to manipulate your gear.


Okay -- supposing you are right and weight distribution is the cause of lost traction and not torque (dubious), _the issue of needing extra traction when riding SS remains the same_.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

nope, just better weight distribution, imo. 

gstahl, i didn't say anything that wasn't nice, i was just wondering if it you were seriously asking for tires that excell at singlespeeding, which don't exist and never will, or putting singlespeed in the title so that you could start a tire thread without having to start a thread in a different forum.

i chose not to ignore it because this is the internet, and stupidity is amusing. <-- there, now i've said something not nice, which validates your statement that i didn't listen to my mother.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

sean salach said:


> nope, just better weight distribution, imo.


I think you need to take some time and contemplate what the "O" stands for in "IMO".


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

if there were a magical tire that gave singlespeeds better traction(and the lack of rolling resistance we need when our riding partners shift into bigger gears), it would give everyone better traction, multispeeders too. which would make it a mtb tire, not a singlespeed tire.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

sean salach said:


> if there were a magical tire that gave singlespeeds better traction(and the lack of rolling resistance we need when our riding partners shift into bigger gears), it would give everyone better traction, multispeeders too. which would make it a mtb tire, not a singlespeed tire.


I was suggesting that singlespeeders might want one of the other, not both in the same tire (my original wording may have been ambigious). A geared rider may not feel the need for the extra weight and rolling resistance of a traction oriented tire. _Or_, a geared rider may not feel the need to worry about maintaining momentum when they can just shift into a bigger gear.


----------



## dannybob (Feb 21, 2004)

*thanksgiving...*

i'm thankful i'm not arguing on the internet on whether i should or shouldn't ask questions about tires for my singlespeed mountain bike on a singlespeed mountain bike forum.

gobble. gobble.


----------



## gstahl (Dec 20, 2003)

dannybob said:


> i'm thankful i'm not arguing on the internet on whether i should or shouldn't ask questions about tires for my singlespeed mountain bike on a singlespeed mountain bike forum.
> 
> gobble. gobble.


Well said. =)

Actually to add to this. I am thankful that we all have the health and opportunity to ride whatever we choose (tires included).

Sean: Congratulations on completing the la ruta, epic effort. =)


----------



## z rocks (Jul 5, 2007)

Panaracer Rampage 2.35 front/2.1 specialized Captain rear.


----------



## DJ Lieb (Dec 21, 2005)

I live in Auburn and have been running WTB Exiwolf 2.1s and they have been good so far.


----------



## bikerideAZ (Apr 8, 2007)

Clearly it does matter what SSers are using because many tend to use the same type and brand tires. I don't worry about traction when I'm on my geared bike because I don't really have to stand up and torque like I do on the SS.

What do I know compared to *Sean Salach'*s two months and 500 posts. Ever get the feeling that you're not listened to in person so you have to use chat boards to illicit any type of response from people?


----------



## Upchuck (Jan 30, 2004)

Rigid fork SS- 2.5 Nevegal DTC F/2.1 Nevegal DTC R
Suspension fork SS- 2.0 Specialized Roll-X 2Bliss w/ Stan's

In comparison, I run 2.0 Specialized FastTrac Pro's on my geared HT race bike. I disagree with Sean's implication that any tire that works for an SS will serve the same purpose for their gearie.

FWIW I ride in SoCal.


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

sean salach said:


> singlespeed tires? seriously?


Understanding the topic requires an understanding of differences between geared riding and singlespeeding, which are already mentioned by others in this thread.

Singlespeed tires are the ones that bring advantage to singlespeeding in those differences.

Ali


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

sean salach said:


> pedalling up a hill in the granny gear puts more torque on the tire than grinding up it on a singlespeed


Sometimes ignorance is more amusing that stupidity; isn't it. At least stupidity is interesting all the way from from its definition to its application. [Aside: Quoting Ugur Mumcu, better not have opinions before having information.]

May I suggest that you make some effort to learn about torque before spreading out bogus information that you unfortunately, ungracefully, and unsuccessfully try to validate by self-claimed years of riding. Torque has nothing to do with any of that.

Ali


----------



## ATBScott (Jun 4, 2006)

What I find works for me best as a "SS" tire is a rear tire that will REGAIN traction quickly when I have leaned too far forward during some feeble effort to climb some stupid-steep section of trail or hill (at least stupid-steep for me on an SS). The Exiwolf seems to hook up really well for me, but also, when I am in a gasping, trying to survive a 20+% grade that has gone on way too long, and I am over the bars heaving up the beast, that if I start to spin the tire it regains traction almost immediately. It has allowed me to clean a few hill that I was not thinking I would make. A front tire is really more of a "what works for you and your bike when it's rigid/suspended thing" - but the rear tire's traction characteristics will be what might make it work for you as a "SS" tire or not. With a gearie, I can stay in the saddle and grind out a climb, rarely standing. Tires that work well in this situation may not grip as well when you are standing, or like I said earlier, regain traction when you have overpowered the available grip. All said, any given rider's style/technique and the conditions that you ride in will make a difference also. Find out what others are using who ride SS in your area, and then try to experiment to see what works for you. Make friends with other SS'ers and do some tire-swapping and try their stuff out, let them try yours. If you find something you like, then go out, get a set and ride - just like I am going to now!


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

pisket said:


> Understanding the topic requires an understanding of differences between geared riding and singlespeeding, which are already mentioned by others in this thread.
> 
> Singlespeed tires are the ones that bring advantage to singlespeeding in those differences.
> 
> Ali





pisket said:


> Sometimes ignorance is more amusing that stupidity; isn't it. At least stupidity is interesting all the way from from its definition to its application. [Aside: Quoting Ugur Mumcu, better not have opinions before having information.]
> 
> May I suggest that you make some effort to learn about torque before spreading out bogus information that you unfortunately, ungracefully, and unsuccessfully try to validate by self-claimed years of riding. Torque has nothing to do with any of that.
> 
> Ali


i myself am very impressimificated by your vociferous emplanamations of the factitudes. :thumbsup:

weight, applied to the crank, turns the gears which rotate the wheel. the rotating wheel will either grip and propel, or spin. torque is one of those, i don't know exactly which one it it is, and don't really care. it doesn't take a nerd to figure out what was meant by it. in fact, the person it was adressed to seemed to understand it just fine. since you clearly need it explained to you, here goes. my opinion, based on the information i have gathered, is that , (as i stated earlier in reeeaally simple terms), the traction a given tire gets on any bike is based on region, conditions and terrain. if someone is singlespeeding in a 28x24, as someone i know personally has done with great success in her steeper expert class races, they aren't going to have the same weight distribution problems that someone running a 32x16 in the same terrain will. changing handlebar and seat position will do the same. riders of different heights and weights, the same. different sized frame for a given height/weight, again, the same. a good xc tire is a good xc tire, for a given group of conditions, terrains and regions, no matter what type of bike it's on.


----------



## Upchuck (Jan 30, 2004)

OK, Pollock. We got it. You're logic and common sense in all things treaded is unmatched. Why don't you go whittle something while the rest of us discuss which is harder to pedal: 36:18 or 32:16. Or did you have some insight into that one too?


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

at's a good idea. i like carving.


----------



## kalNhobbs (Jan 5, 2007)

I was just wondering if it's better to have a higher volume tire on a rigid SS than a lower volume. I have 2.1 fire XCs on my INBRED now, but the wide profile of the rhino lites they surround make them a little "unbeefy". 

Would I benefit from perhaps a 2.3 or 2.4 tire, like a Maxxis Advantage or something? Would it be better to have bigger tires up front only, or also in the rear? 

BTW, I ride the mountainous regions of western Oregon (corvallis more specifically)


----------



## bui (Mar 16, 2007)

Yes, I would go with a larger volume up front....that way, you can run lower pressure without as high a risk of pinch flatting. That'll keep you more comfortable. As for the differential between front and rear, I don't know. I run a 2.3 up front and a 2.0 in the back.


----------



## kalNhobbs (Jan 5, 2007)

hmmm. that sounds like a good idea now. but i hate the look of mismatched tires. And I have no idea what to got to


----------



## kalNhobbs (Jan 5, 2007)

would an Maxxis Advantage 2.4 up front and a WTB MotoRaptor 2.24 in the rear be a good setup ya think?


I afraid that the Advantages have a bad reputation though regarding sidewalls, although they are the most appealing type tire for my conditions


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

The IRC Mibro is a gem of an unknown tire. They can be found in a kevlar bead for cheap. They are light weight and high volume, the 2.25 is lighter than the old 1.95 Mythos. As with all IRC tires they run small.


----------



## robcycle (May 10, 2006)

26: IRC Trailbear's, 2.5 up front, 2.25 in the back, the sticky compund

29'er: whatever came stock on the Monocog 29'er, its in the other room  

-Rob.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

kalNhobbs said:


> but i hate the look of mismatched tires.


Yeah, the front-wheel-drive drag car look doesn't get much love.


----------



## kashmore (Nov 29, 2007)

*Maxxis Crossmark 2.1 29er*

First tires on a first time 29er and SSer. I like them for the hard pack and moderately loose/sandy that I ride on. I have them front and rear. They are fast on hard pack, and corner well due to rounded profile. Also float well over sand (29" trait also).
Been riding in Fruita, CO, lately, and they are working well there too. More rock in Fruita area.
Keifer


----------

