# Are 2.6 and fat tires really worth the weight?



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

I didnt start mtb that long ago (2012 timeframe). Back then 2.3 tires were big and even regular riders tried to go with lightweight tires. For me 600-700 gram were what I rode. You could go lighter, but all the limestone in central texas slice sidewalls very easily. Ive never worn out a tire. 

I ride 2.3 nobby nic/2.3 ikon. We dont have massive downhills, so you dont pick up that much speed. There arent a lot of high speed carving turns. Trails are more technical than fast. Descents might be .5 miles, 300 feet elevation at the most. Im thinking maybe the big knob tires dont really matter for central texas? (Though I know a lot of people ride DHF/aggressor).

I put 2.3 DHF minions on my new ripmo and I couldnt stand how heavy and slow they were so I switched to forekaster/ikon and it is *much* better. I was absolutely hating the ripmo, but with the new tires I love it.

The fat tire revolution appeared and I was thinking WTF. how are people riding 1kg tires or even 1.2kg.

Do people really benefit that much from 2.5-3.0 tires? Are we crazy for wanting the lightest tires possible?


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

3.0 tires are the bees knees!!

Climb up & roll down stuff that'll have you bailing or OTB'ing on narrower tires.

My 29x3.0 tires weigh 1100g approx.

My 29x2.5/2.4 tires weigh 970-930g.

My 27.5x2.5/2.4 tires weigh 920-895g.

The extra 100+ grams, enables so much confidence on technical climbs/descents.

Go down gnar that'd make Spiderman blush 

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

*Are 2.6 and fat tires really worth the weight?*

Depends on individual priorities. For me, the answer to that qurstion is yes. I'm sure others feel differently and that cool. We should each run whatever we feel suits our personal needs best. 
=sParty


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

goodmojo said:


> Do people really benefit that much from 2.5-3.0 tires? Are we crazy for wanting the lightest tires possible?


I would not even consider 3.0, it was an industry driven fad that ran smack on against reality: nobody needs those monsters unless you are riding on the beach. A lot of bikes don't even fit 3.0 tires any longer (e.g. the new Mojo from Ibis).

2.6 is a matter of preference. I used to run a Nobby Nic 2.6 mostly to try to find some extra plush and control that was quite lacking. But the problem was the fork. Since I switched to a Push ACS3 I went happily back to 2.3, no need for 2.6 ... and reality is that a bigger tire is slower up the hill .... Currently on Nobby Nic 2.3/2.3 on my HD3


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Depends on your terrain and speeds. But also very dependent on rim width and pressure. 
If you don't have wide enough rims to run low pressure you don't get the performance.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

are most people riding the types of trails where they need the performance? Our trails are absolutely brutally rocky. Climbing absolutely sucks with the giant tires, but the downhills are fine with a 2.3. 

For XC type trails around the country, it seems like these tires arent really needed. what are examples of trails where these types of tires shine?


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> I would not even consider 3.0, it was an industry driven fad that ran smack on against reality: nobody needs those monsters unless you are riding on the beach. A lot of bikes don't even fit 3.0 tires any longer (e.g. the new Mojo from Ibis).
> 
> 2.6 is a matter of preference. I used to run a Nobby Nic 2.6 mostly to try to find some extra plush and control that was quite lacking. But the problem was the fork. Since I switched to a Push ACS3 I went happily back to 2.3, no need for 2.6 ... and reality is that a bigger tire is slower up the hill .... Currently on Nobby Nic 2.3/2.3 on my HD3


You're running a nobby nic on the front of an HD, so....

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

In my experience, big 2.6-2.8 tires had casings that were very flimsy and bouncy. The width of the tires gave it a monster truck feel, but they would bottom out easily on hard bumps hit squarely. A curb that would normally give my front tire no problem would rim strike both front and rear, even with higher pressures that I would run in a 2.3. Trying to avoid bumps square on didn't really help their case, since they'd catch so many on the edge and deflect like a pinball, due to their wide nature. They really needed a tougher casing and perhaps slower rebound rubber, but they weighed so much already...

I can only recommend them if you are exploring trails that aren't commonly ridden. Maybe moto and 4x4 trails that don't have a single smooth line. They monster truck weeds and crusty ground that's not compacted.

Being unable to pedal even a 2.3 DHF... that's just a matter of grit and fitness. You probably haven't been desensitized to grippy tires. I guess that's why you posted here in the WW forum...


On the bike I ride, I have long CS (444mm) and a relatively tucked in front wheel (1195mm WB), which nets me plenty of traction up front, so I actually reversed my tire situation. I run a grippy reinforced 2.5 tire in back, and 2.3 snakeskin tire up front. Seems to work pretty well for the low traction climbs, and I'm not too afraid of letting off the brakes on descents. I guess I trust the precision of a 2.3 more than the false confidence of the 2.6, which pinballs me around in the rough. People claim to not feel the drag of a front tire, but I certainly do. I don't find drag in the rear to be felt that much. Probably just due to how my bike's weight distro is.

Yea, I think wanting light tires is crazy. I'm determined to wear out some tires. I've had Maxxis MaxTerra tires with 2.5k miles, but haven't yet really worn any bald. I've made Kenda and Vee tires bald, but those only took like 500 miles. Hopefully, by choosing durable tires...


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Do you typically ram your front tire squarely into curbs? 

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

GT87 said:


> Do you typically ram your front tire squarely into curbs?
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


[HR][/HR]

we will have 3-4 square edge ledges in a row. eventually you are going to mistime and hit one.

This video is someone going down, but you can see the ledges all in a row.


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

The 2.6" XR2 weighs about 750g...lighter than the last 2.3 Nobby Nics I replaced.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

GT87 said:


> Do you typically ram your front tire squarely into curbs?
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


Yea, it's become an expected level of capability from my bike. I use it as a reference, since I presume there's some standard curb geometry that could be found across the world. I've been ramming curbs ever since I got my first real mtb fork.

I commute to the trails on bike, so crossing 4 lane roads with islands between the right-turn traffic and normal traffic might be something I get up on at low speed to hit the crossing button. I also hit curbs if I'm carrying cargo too, like groceries, and want to get off the road, such as crossing a narrow bridge/overpass without a shoulder. Commuting by mtb is the only way I could do so and retain my sanity, for the past 20+ years.

The gist is that the 2.6-2.8 tires rimstrike too easily, and adding pressure doesn't seem to help. Based on experience, I think plus just lacks the ability to be ridden aggressively on hard and rocky terrain. Expensive lesson learned through expensive busted rims (Stan's Bravo) and expensive tubeless tires that pinched. I run CushCore full time too, though not with my current DH rear tire (since it was a ***** to install).


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Davide said:


> I would not even consider 3.0, it was an industry driven fad that ran smack on against reality: nobody needs those monsters unless you are riding on the beach.


You may not need them for your trails. Totally fine.

But you don't live everywhere. Lots of people have conditions that not only warrant 3" or bigger tires, they demand it: Any smaller and you're walking.


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> Yea, it's become an expected level of capability from my bike. I use it as a reference, since I presume there's some standard curb geometry that could be found across the world. I've been ramming curbs ever since I got my first real mtb fork.
> 
> I commute to the trails on bike, so crossing 4 lane roads with islands between the right-turn traffic and normal traffic might be something I get up on at low speed to hit the crossing button. I also hit curbs if I'm carrying cargo too, like groceries, and want to get off the road, such as crossing a narrow bridge/overpass without a shoulder. Commuting by mtb is the only way I could do so and retain my sanity, for the past 20+ years.
> 
> The gist is that the 2.6-2.8 tires rimstrike too easily, and adding pressure doesn't seem to help. Based on experience, I think plus just lacks the ability to be ridden aggressively on hard and rocky terrain. Expensive lesson learned through expensive busted rims (Stan's Bravo) and expensive tubeless tires that pinched. I run CushCore full time too, though not with my current DH rear tire (since it was a ***** to install).


You ever consider bunny-hopping these square-edged curbs instead of casing straight into them and then blaming the tires for your complete lack of finesse or skills?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

GT87 said:


> You're running a nobby nic on the front of an HD, so....
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


So ... what? you might need a 2.5-2.6 tire in some conditions, but believe me a lot of the reasons to do so are just slightly less imaginary than the reasons the industry was putting forward to use 3.0 tires. Remember? Some industry megaphones, e.g. pinkbike, were going as far as seeing the "3.0 standard" as the gate to the return of the hard tail :madman:

Fast forward 5 years and many makers do not even provide the option for a 3.0 back tire. Check it out: the whole Ibis full suspension line up tops out at 2.6. And 2.3-2.4-2.5 work great as long as you have a good suspension. The reason is that what provides traction, control and shock absorption is indeed your suspension, not plus or minus millimeters of tire diameter put there as a band-aid ...


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> So ... what? you might need a 2.5-2.6 tire in some conditions, but believe me a lot of the reasons to do so are just slightly less imaginary than the reasons the industry was putting forward to use 3.0 tires. Remember? Some industry megaphones, e.g. pinkbike, were going as far as seeing the "3.0 standard" as the gate to the return of the hard tail :madman:
> 
> Fast forward 5 years and many makers do not even provide the option for a 3.0 back tire. And the reason is that what provides traction, control and shock absorption is your suspension, not plus or minus millimeters of tire diameter ...


You don't have to convince me, I'm mostly riding 2.3-2.5, but 2.6-3 has it's place too. But if you're using a nobby nic on the front of an HD you're either under-tired or overbiked, and everyone should take your tire recommendations with a couple pinches of salt.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

GT87 said:


> You don't have to convince me, I'm mostly riding 2.3-2.5, but 2.6-3 has it's place too. But if you're using a nobby nic on the front of an HD you're either under-tired or overbiked, and everyone should take your tire recommendations with a couple pinches of salt.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


and .. exactly ... why? Don't be silly, I ride a NN 2.3 because it works better, with my revamped suspension, than a NN 2.6, and pretty much the same of a MM 2.35.


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> and .. exactly ... why? Don't be silly, I ride a NN 2.3 because it works better, with my revamped suspension, than a NN 2.6, and pretty much the same of a MM 2.35.


Nobody's talking about a 2.6NN, I'm talking about the tread. The NN is a fine tire for what it is, but if you think it performs pretty much the same as a Magic Mary then I don't even know what to say to that. Thanks for confirming that you're overbiked and that your opinions on tires should be completely disregarded.


----------



## telejefe (Mar 28, 2007)

I am finding the best benefit of 2.6 tires to be the height. I get a noticeable height increase in BB. I went from a 2.6 tire to a 2.4 rekon and the drop was noticeable and also experienced the first pedal strike explosion crash. Going back to 2.6.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

GT87 said:


> You ever consider bunny-hopping these square-edged curbs instead of casing straight into them and then blaming the tires for your complete lack of finesse or skills?
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


Curbs are rather blunt and small. The bike should handle a lot more. I cross over ruts that are worse hits than a curb. If you bunny hop one curb sized obstacle, what about the other ones on the other side?

If you're going slower because you know the tires can't cope with the hits, it seems odd for you to adapt to it, when you can choose to pick something that better adapts to the terrain and you. Swapping back to narrower tires offered confidence to just straight line through all sorts of chunk. Slowing down, being picky about lines, snaking around obstacles... if this sounds like your style, I guess you don't know what you're giving up.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

In my experience the only advantage of 2.6 is a slight increase in comfort.


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> Curbs are rather blunt and small. The bike should handle a lot more. I cross over ruts that are worse hits than a curb. If you bunny hop one curb sized obstacle, what about the other ones on the other side?
> 
> If you're going slower because you know the tires can't cope with the hits, it seems odd for you to adapt to it, when you can choose to pick something that better adapts to the terrain and you. Swapping back to narrower tires offered confidence to just straight line through all sorts of chunk. Slowing down, being picky about lines, snaking around obstacles... if this sounds like your style, I guess you don't know what you're giving up.


I'm not talking about "curb sized obstacles" or blasting chunk on your enduro bike, I'm talking about the literal curbs and traffic islands that you smashed a carbon rim on like a total gaper while commuting.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

You won't see anything over about 800g on my wheels.

I'm riding the same trails I rode on 1.95 and 2.1 tyres.

Albeit hitting things harder on modern duallies - hence tubeless EXO 2.3 sized tyres.

And no, it's not all baked clay or loam. It's renowned tyre cutting terrain in places.

I have no desire to add weight and undamped suspension to my bike.

I'm 100kg without a pack. 

I rode with a friend the other day who rides a 29" carbon HT XC bike. His Race Kings were, unsurprisingly, not much good around here, for the most part. He's about 80kg, if that.

Local shop recommends and fits no less than a DHF 2.5WT up front and 2.3 DHR on the back. 

Tubed.

Oh boy...


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

GT87 said:


> Nobody's talking about a 2.6NN, I'm talking about the tread. The NN is a fine tire for what it is, but if you think it performs pretty much the same as a Magic Mary then I don't even know what to say to that. Thanks for confirming that you're overbiked and that your opinions on tires should be completely disregarded.


Why don't you read what people write (check my first post you objected to above) instead of telling them that they cannot ride a certain bike with a certain tire :eekster: :skep:


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

GT87 said:


> I'm not talking about "curb sized obstacles" or blasting chunk on your enduro bike, I'm talking about the literal curbs and traffic islands that you smashed a carbon rim on like a total gaper while commuting.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


Who said the carbon rims were busted on the curbs? I said they rim strike on curbs, implying that plus tires bottom out way too easily. The carbon rims were busted while using SuperGravity casing 2.8 tire that weighs 1500g, plus CushCore, and high pressures. It was from popping off of one rock and trying to bunnyhop over subsequent rocks. The tubeless tire, shown with a hole big enough to fit a fat plug or two, pinch flatted through CushCore on a typical wedge-shaped sniper rock.

Is there a tougher plus tire on the market than the Schwalbe Eddy Current? What do plus tires (2.6-3.0) even offer that's worth all the compromises? They don't grip any better than the 2.5 Maxxis Assegai I got on now, probably because I was forced to run them at higher pressure to mitigate failure. Maybe if you dropped pressure down to the low teens, you can do some rock crawling.


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> Who said the carbon rims were busted on the curbs? I said they rim strike on curbs, implying that plus tires bottom out way too easily. The carbon rims were busted while using SuperGravity casing 2.8 tire that weighs 1500g, plus CushCore, and high pressures. It was from popping off of one rock and trying to bunnyhop over subsequent rocks. The tubeless tire, shown with a hole big enough to fit a fat plug or two, pinch flatted through CushCore on a typical wedge-shaped sniper rock.
> 
> Is there a tougher plus tire on the market than the Schwalbe Eddy Current? What do plus tires (2.6-3.0) even offer that's worth all the compromises? They don't grip any better than the 2.5 Maxxis Assegai I got on now, probably because I was forced to run them at higher pressure to mitigate failure. Maybe if you dropped pressure down to the low teens, you can do some rock crawling.


Ok, I misunderstood. Obviously plus tires aren't the best choice for riding hard and fast in rocky terrain. What's your point? They have good float and rollover, they tend to be efficient on loose and soft surfaces, and they have a pretty good balance of grip to rolling resistance for mixed terrain. They're pretty good for bikepacking, and they're cushy on hardtails. It's not a revelation that they're not a good choice for getting rad on your big bike.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> Why don't you read what people write (check my first post you objected to above) instead of telling them that they cannot ride a certain bike with a certain tire :eekster: :skep:


You're free to make whatever silly choices you want to make.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

GT87 said:


> You're free to make whatever silly choices you want to make.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


Of course I am, as you are not reading what you reply to and making up bizarro "that bike cannot use this tire" theories .... :thumbsup:


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> Of course I am, as you are not reading what you reply to and making up bizarro "that bike cannot use this tire" theories ....


Are you dumb?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm happy with a wider 2.6" tyre on the front. I hated it on the rear because it made the bike feel dead. Switching to a 2.4" on the rear felt much better. I didn't notice any loss of traction going smaller on the rear.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

What nobody seems to have pointed out in this thread is the massive contact patch and grip you can get from a 3" tire on a wide rim. Huge grip on a variety of surfaces. Rock crawling, climbing, etc. 

It's super fun!

Is it the best tool for every application? No. Is there more rolling resistance? Yes, depending on the tire. Does it have other redeeming qualities? Yes, it's a hugely tall tire, holds speed and doesn't fall into small holes that rob momentum. 

It's also very comfy on chunky trails. It's my tool of choice for pedaling through miles of rock gardens. It's amazing the traction, even on a bad line I'm able to just pedal through stuff that would normally stop me dead. 

On other bikes I like a 2.6 tire in front with a 2.3-4 in rear. Maxxis Forekaster or NN for example. The weight penalty is negligible. I have no desire to ever run a tire smaller than 2.35 ever again. Not even for racing.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

I wouldn't run anything smaller then 29x2.4 due to comfort, grip and rollover. It is noticeable compared to the 29x2.2 I had run at one point. I wouldn't run anything less aggressive then Minion DHF on the front because it is nice having a tire like that has plenty of traction. Exo casings are just barely cutting it. I have torn two rears. Probably need to try out a tire insert or go to a doubledown casing. I also want to try out 2.6s. 

I am 205lb hardtail rider who likes steep and rocky stuff but I am not some expert level rider.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The preconceived benefits of plus just seems like an illusion to me, after back-to-back testing.

I mentioned that the suspension they provide, feeling of monster truck capability, was a mind trick. The feeling gave me an attitude to plow, but its tendency to bottom out discouraged me. I monster trucked better on narrower tires, as I had real suspension (that didn't work with the plus tires).

I rather have a lower amount of well-controlled quality suspension, than an extra amount of suspension that doesn't behave well. Feels like the plus tires made me hit limits well before the suspension could come into play.

That float isn't seen as a positive to me. Hydroplaning over watery slop, and not biting when trying to change direction over loose stuff. I understand the comparison to how fat tires don't sink/dig into stuff like sand and snow, making it easier to pedal as there's not a virtual hill that exists only in front of your tire that you have to pedal through, but a plus tire is pretty comparable to the difference between a 2.3 and 2.5 tire. A fat tire is on a whole different scale.








^ 2.3 vs 2.5 tires.

Anyways, I just reason that the bigger tires seem aesthetically imposing. I find some positives with the narrower tires, such as noticeable precision and agility. I admit that the plus tire filter out tiny stuff like fine gravel, crusty dirt, vegetation, and minor erosion, but that stuff can be filtered by the mind over time, as you realize that all that stuff doesn't have any impact to how you want to ride. It's just a feeling and mental thing creating an illusion. The grip I get with my 2.5 rear has been the best I've experienced, without any real drawbacks. I even saved considerable weight compared to the tough 2.8 tire.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

GT87 said:


> But if you're using a nobby nic on the front of an HD you're either under-tired or overbiked, and everyone should take your tire recommendations with a couple pinches of salt.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


What?

You do realise it's possible to have big hits and go large in terrain that's not abrasive or destructive to tyres?


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Sideknob said:


> What?
> 
> You do realise it's possible to have big hits and go large in terrain that's not abrasive or destructive to tyres?


Yeah, I realize that, and I was commenting on the tread pattern not the casing. But I've also been informed that a nic is pretty much the same as magic mary, so apparently it must be delusional day. I guess if you're just riding groomed flow trails with sticky dirt. My point was that if you're not finding the limits of a nobby nic as a front tire, then you're nowhere close to finding the limits of a 150-170mm rig, and you're way overbiked. And the only way you could think that a nic and Mary are comparable is if you're not finding the limits of the nic, because they're not even in the same ballpark

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I think bigger/heavier tires are a personal preference/location based thing. They clearly don't make sense everywhere, for every rider.

It seems like with light weight tires you give up casing durability/support, traction, or both.

I live in the PNW, where the trails are wet at least 8-9 months of the year, and we have multi-mile continuous downhill trails covering 1-3k vertical feet. I want all the traction I can get, and don't like dinging rims. So I'm conciously making my climbs take a few minutes longer, for increased control on the way down.

I've got a 2.6in WTB Vigilante up front on my bike. I think its 1200g or so. In the rear I have a 2.4in Michelin Wild Enduro Rear, that weighs in around 1050-1100g. 

I used to have some 2.3in DHF's (EXO casing), that I think were around 950g or so. I dented the rear rim pretty good with the DHF out back, and punctured it straight through the center of the tread. Plus they felt much more squirmy in corners and G outs, and took a lot more pressure to get any support from them. I don't think I'll be returning to a casing that thin again in the near future, at least not for the type of riding I do here.

That said, I'm not sure if I'll go 2.6in on the front next time I might try a narrower tire. But don’t think I’d go lower than 2.4 or 2.5in. 

To each their own though .


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

They are absolutely worth the weight and you are crazy. Because weight never matters in any meaningful sense of the word. Even a few psi of air pressure has a greater influence on the power it takes the move your bike. The bike industry has you duped...weight does not matter.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I loved the overall balance of rolling speed, cornering, braking, and climbing of the DHR II, but they just pinch flatted too often. Going wider didn't help with how easily they bottomed. DH casing and MaxxGrip was my final solution... I have no regrets. I've become desensitized to the anchor like properties that slow me like I were riding into a headwind. DH casing Assegai on the back of my bike already well outlasted the Hellkat (AGC RSR ICB) I had on the front... something about Maxxis rubber compound resisting undercutting and crumbling, allowing it to seem fresh for far longer use. 

Tires are very complicated and hard to generalize, but basic understanding of what's good and bad from experience fuels my belief. No wonder people seem to be religious and fanatical about tires. I seem to have just accepted a certain trade-off, riding regularly enough with slow draggy tires to treat them as an opportunity to build up my fitness. Helps that they reduce fear in technical stuff, and made low traction climbs a simple matter of brute force.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

twodownzero said:


> They are absolutely worth the weight and you are crazy. Because weight never matters in any meaningful sense of the word. Even a few psi of air pressure has a greater influence on the power it takes the move your bike. The bike industry has you duped...weight does not matter.


+1

and how about the fact that every bike looks tuffer with the biggest/fattest tyres you can fit in it...........nobody can deny that


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

Bigger objects usually need bigger tires. If you hold ground pressure as a constant, the difference in rider weight between a 2.4 and 2.6 is about 8%. For those of you who say only 2.4 always, answer me this: why 2.4 and not 2.2, 2.0, or 1.8? Yes, because they just work. But why do they just work?

A 2.4 tire with a 150lb rider interacts with the ground very differently than with a 250lb rider.


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

well my 2.3 tires, that measure out at 2.4, with a 200lb rider, is a very sweet balance point between different terrain types. 

muddy slick steep climbs, chunky rock gardens, gravels, pavement and river bed single track. Jumps ect ect

so as far as the question are larger tires worth it? hell no. not for me

if someone rode more sandy loamy type terrain, they might have a good point.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

twodownzero said:


> They are absolutely worth the weight and you are crazy. Because weight never matters in any meaningful sense of the word. Even a few psi of air pressure has a greater influence on the power it takes the move your bike. The bike industry has you duped...weight does not matter.


Mass is directly proportional to the energy needed to move an object against gravity. That's basic physics. -deltaPEg=mgh

That's even more true for rotational mass.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

TylerVernon said:


> For those of you who say only 2.4 always, answer me this: why 2.4 and not 2.2, 2.0, or 1.8? Yes, because they just work. But why do they just work?


My issue with 2.6" tires is actually that they're too flimsy and light duty (typically). A 2.4 and 2.6 Rekon basically weigh the same. The 2.6's are not supportive enough for most of my riding. I'll run them on my hardtail sometimes with inserts for the extra comfort but I have to be careful with them. On my enduro bike I've been running an 2.35" 1100g semi-slick because that's what I need to keep the tire from folding in berms (even running 30 psi). I'd imagine that same tire scaled up to 2.6" would weigh a whole lot more. It's an issue of diminishing returns (limited traction increase) and that's why DH quit using 2.6"+ tires years ago.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

It makes sense to follow R&D investment too. Like you can't say all 29ers in general are good, just because the 29ers in the past year have been hot*. R&D investment on the race side, plus real world testing under from a wide range of riders, helps to ensure a product's shortcomings are minimal.

Reminds me of my peeve about bikes design, such as how they only prototype one mule for real world testing, get it well optimized, and then tweak the numbers to create a few extra sizes.

*in this context, I'd advise someone who is shopping used markets that some 27.5 bikes would still be better options than some 29ers, because they received more R&D investment (e.g. real world testing under a prototype and pre-production models), rather than be some quickly adapted frame created on the computer to fill in a hole in a line-up, which gets launched alongside the flagship.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

GT87 said:


> Are you dumb?
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


No, but you are seemingly so, thinking that you cannot use a Nobby Nic on a HD3 :skep:


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> No, but you are seemingly so, thinking that you cannot use a Nobby Nic on a HD3 :skep:


You can use road slicks on it if you want. Whatever floats your boat.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

The new Nobby Nic looks like an improvement 

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

targnik said:


> The new Nobby Nic looks like an improvement
> 
> Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


Yeah, it definitely does. Still gonna fill a different niche than a magic mary of course, but it looks really promising.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

There's always the droves of people on FB and a few here that claim they are "faster" on fatbikes with their fat 4-5" tires. 

And by "fast", they mean slow. They were crazy slow before and these bikes with their tires have given them a slight bit more confidence, but they aren't really pushing it, not even close. 

The plus sized tires are a similar effect. Not quite as exaggerated, you can go "pretty fast" with them, but you are still pushing more weight and rotational mass around and they are still slower in terrain than normal sized tires.

I've been doing DH ever since I started riding, and by "DH", I mean dedicated DH tracks, bike parks, races, etc. It's not the only riding I do and I believe in being an all-around rider, so I try to practice and train with XC racing as well, to the point where I can do pretty damn well in straight weight-weenie XC, but my favorite is still DH riding. 

We started with the Tioga DH tires, 2.35 if I remember correctly, but they were a "fat" 2.35, more like 2.4 or slightly more. After a while, tire sizes went to 2.5, then 2.7. We tried 2.8 to 3.0 tires. They were slow. They did great in the tech and gave confidence, but they were not the fastest way. I used 2.8s for a while. Friends using 3.0s were using (for the time) ridiculously low pressure, like 15 psi. But this fad passed. For aggressive terrain riding, around 2.5 max front and 2.3 max rear is the fastest way, and by "fastest" I mean you have the necessary grip to rail the turns at high speed. There is a little bit of variance in this, some manufacturers "listed" widths are obviously different than reality, but in general, this is the fastest way in DH.

In XC racing, we are riding XC bikes downhill faster than most "mid-level" enduro/DH riders. Yes, there are terrain limits, but those limits are a lot further than most people think they are and high level XC racers push their bikes downhill at amazing speeds. It takes a pretty severe gnarly DH to make an enduro/DH bike faster and again, most of those riders don't ride trails that are that hard. It doesn't mean I want to be riding an XC bike that fast DH all the time, but that's what happens in the races, and we darn sure aren't running 2.5 or 3.0 tires. 

Moving away from racing, not everyone is interested in "the fastest way", but at the same time, you don't need super wide tires either to go fast or to ride tough terrain. There are some very specific situations where they help, but most of the time, they just make things slower. Even in the winter *most* of the time you can ride trails with skinnier tires. Fat tires allow for more cush and ability to ride more conditions and terrain, but it doesn't snow 3" of new snow every day, snow gets packed down, etc. Riding skinny bikes over and over in snow does dig ruts pretty fast, but the point is the fat tires and bikes are not a solution to every problem. They roll slow and the gyroscopic rigidity is a real thing when you start going faster. 

I recently rode my fat-bike out to a trail-work event. I ride them on roads/hill-climbs in the summer for training, but not much else until the snow falls. Riding it on the train in the summer is like being drunk, you try to turn, but the bike doesn't want to turn. You try to pedal, but it just doesn't want to move forward. The faster you go, the less it reacts and follows your commands. Trying to get the bike over and onto certain lines can be impossible at times. 

Yeah, this is a full-on bashing of "plus" tire sizes. They have a niche, but that niche doesn't give them some super-human ability to go faster or ride through terrain that's un-rideable. In general, they are slower.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

GT87 said:


> Yeah, it definitely does. Still gonna fill a different niche than a magic mary of course, but it looks really promising.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


Thats my HT setup, MM up front, NN out back, currently 2.35, but l have 2.6 waiting .........


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

Jayem said:


> I recently rode my fat-bike out to a trail-work event. I ride them on roads/hill-climbs in the summer for training, but not much else until the snow falls. Riding it on the train in the summer is like being drunk, you try to turn, but the bike doesn't want to turn. You try to pedal, but it just doesn't want to move forward. The faster you go, the less it reacts and follows your commands. Trying to get the bike over and onto certain lines can be impossible at times.


I totally disagree with this.

I feel my Fattie comes alive at speed, whether lm what you term "fast" is another matter. Maybe l just man-handle my bikes more as l come from an Enduro Motorcycle background.

Either way, lve always put the fattest tyres l could on my bikes, its how l roll ;-), different strokes for different folks.


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

What if I want to build an aggressive-ish hardtail with a 130 fork for longer distance riding on all kinds of terrain. Nothing super gnar, but i'll be off the "beaten path" frequently. I don't care about KOMs, average speeds. I care more about comfort, and I just want to have fun on the bike. Would 2.6 XC/trail tyres make sense over 2.2-2.3s?


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

HollyBoni said:


> What if i'm building an aggressive-ish hardtail with a 130 fork for longer distance riding on all kinds of terrain. Nothing super gnar. I don't care about KOMs, average speeds, I care more about comfort, and I just want to have fun on the bike. Would a 2.6 make sense over a 2.2-2.3?


Yes

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

HollyBoni said:


> What if I want to build an aggressive-ish hardtail with a 130 fork for longer distance riding on all kinds of terrain. Nothing super gnar, but i'll be off the "beaten path" frequently. I don't care about KOMs, average speeds. I care more about comfort, and I just want to have fun on the bike. Would 2.6 XC/trail tyres make sense over 2.2-2.3s?


The difference in comfort between 2.3 and 2.6 is pretty minor in my opinion. It's noticeable but not as much of a difference as you're probably hoping for. Running some inserts can help but that's also added weight.


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> The difference in comfort between 2.3 and 2.6 is pretty minor in my opinion. It's noticeable but not as much of a difference as you're probably hoping for. Running some inserts can help but that's also added weight.


The difference isn't night and day, but it's not exactly subtle either. 2.5-2.6 would be my preference for the riding that they're describing.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Got any videos or pics of your off-the-beaten-path? I've been regularly riding 4x4, moto trails, and low traction climbs with scree scattered about. Initially rode it with plus tires, even crediting my enjoyment to the tires, but replaced plus with narrower, and find the narrower tires to be a far better compromise. No loss in enjoyment, no issues with comfort, but instead I feel relief as if it's "just right".

Honestly, might be because I really love Maxxis's rubber compound for my conditions, and getting back on it feels comforting like home. Too many variables between the tire swap. I kind of want to say that talking tire size is like talking boob size... the "perfect" tire comes in all kinds of sizes, shapes, and forms that have many qualities considered in making certain ones stand out.


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

Varaxis said:


> Got any videos or pics of your off-the-beaten-path? I've been regularly riding 4x4, moto trails, and low traction climbs with scree scattered about. Rode it with plus, but replaced plus with narrower, and find the narrower tires to be a far better compromise.


I checked but I only have pics of nice panoramas, nice trails, and nice gravel roads. :lol: Basically I just come up with a random route not knowing anything about it, and then I go and ride for hours. I ride short paved sections. I ride dirt roads which include nice and smooth hardpack roads, or soft and loamy forest roads, but also washed out, barely ridden dirt roads, or dirt roads next to fields that were destroyed by tractors. Then there are gravel roads, which can be nice and smooth, or very rugged with baby head sized rocks. I ride trails of course as much as I can, although the trails that we have here are rather short. I live on the other side of the world compared to most of you guys, MTB trails aren't really a thing here.

The problem is that I haven't had an MTB in ages. I've been rattling my brains out on a gravel bike for about 2-3 years now, hence why I thought screw speed and just go for comfort. The last time I had an MTB, it was a 26" full sus with V brakes and a 3x9 drivetrain, so i'm not sure how comfy a modern hardtail would be with 2.3 tubeless tyres. Thought about full suspension too, but i'm not sure. 
When I talk about comfort, I don't just mean riding trails downhill, but for example riding flatter, but rough roads for longer periods of time. I find that these beat me up the worst when I try to hold any kind of decent speed on them, but again that's on a gravel bike...

What do you mean by compromise? Did you gain noticeably more speed without loosing too much comfort?
I looked at Vittoria Barzos and the difference between 2.35s and 2.6s is 75g per tyre (according to the manufacturer...). I thought I would go with 35mm rims for the 2.6 tyres, and 30mm rims for smaller tyres. On the rims i'm looking at going to 35mm means +35g per rim. All in all that doesn't sound like too much to me (and even though this is the WW forum, i'm looking at a steel frame), but i'm not sure how the wider tyres will roll in the real world.


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> Got any videos or pics of your off-the-beaten-path? I've been regularly riding 4x4, moto trails, and low traction climbs with scree scattered about. Initially rode it with plus tires, even crediting my enjoyment to the tires, but replaced plus with narrower, and find the narrower tires to be a far better compromise. No loss in enjoyment, no issues with comfort, but instead I feel relief as if it's "just right".
> 
> Honestly, might be because I really love Maxxis's rubber compound for my conditions, and getting back on it feels comforting like home. Too many variables between the tire swap. I kind of want to say that talking tire size is like talking boob size... the "perfect" tire comes in all kinds of sizes, shapes, and forms that have many qualities considered in making certain ones stand out.


This is on a hardtail?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

GT87 said:


> The difference isn't night and day, but it's not exactly subtle either. 2.5-2.6 would be my preference for the riding that they're describing.


IMO it is subtle. But I also felt like 2.6 wasn't supportive enough and couldn't lower my pressures but 1-2 psi. I initially lowered my front tire pressure 3 psi after going from 2.4 to 2.6 but destroyed the tire within a month. Then I installed Rimpact inserts which allowed me to keep the pressure 2-3 psi lower than my previous 2.4/2.3 setup. So in my experience 2.6's do only make a subtle difference.


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

HollyBoni said:


> I checked but I only have pics of nice panoramas, nice trails, and nice gravel roads.  Basically I just come up with a random route not knowing anything about it, and then I go and ride for hours. I ride short paved sections. I ride dirt roads which include nice and smooth hardpack roads, or soft and loamy forest roads, but also washed out, barely ridden dirt roads, or dirt roads next to fields that were destroyed by tractors. Then there are gravel roads, which can be nice and smooth, or very rugged with baby head sized rocks. I ride trails of course as much as I can, although the trails that we have here are rather short. I live on the other side of the world compared to most of you guys, MTB trails aren't really a thing here.
> 
> The problem is that I haven't had an MTB in ages. I've been rattling my brains out on a gravel bike for about 2-3 years now, hence why I thought screw speed and just go for comfort. The last time I had an MTB, it was a 26" full sus with V brakes and a 3x9 drivetrain, so i'm not sure how comfy a modern hardtail would be with 2.3 tubeless tyres. Thought about full suspension too, but i'm not sure.
> When I talk about comfort, I don't just mean riding trails downhill, but for example riding flatter, but rough roads for longer periods of time. I find that these beat me up the worst when I try to hold any kind of decent speed on them, but again that's on a gravel bike...
> ...


I've got a lightweight steel hardtail setup with 2.3 race tires, and a rigid hardtail setup with 2.6/3.0, the latter of which I've been riding in Indonesia for the last six months on similar terrain to what you're describing. My other hardtail is faster when I'm hammering on shorter rides and still comfortable enough, and the 29+ is comfier but still plenty fast. But it's a compromise between speed/acceleration on smooth terrain and traction/comfort. For the xc full-sus, and my all-mtn/Enduro bike, I have no interest in running anything larger than 2.3-2.5, but for a touring/bikepacking rigid bike that prioritizes comfort, versatility, and riding off the beaten path, the 2.6+ makes a lot of sense. Out of six bikes that I currently own, only one is a plus bike, so I'm hardly a zealot, but they do have they're advantages. These guys are dismissing them outright as if they serve no purpose outside of they're narrow view of technical trail riding. I'd take that with a grain of salt.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> IMO it is subtle. But I also felt like 2.6 wasn't supportive enough and couldn't lower my pressures but 1-2 psi. I initially lowered my front tire pressure 3 psi after going from 2.4 to 2.6 but destroyed the tire within a month. Then I installed Rimpact inserts which allowed me to keep the pressure 2-3 psi lower than my previous 2.4/2.3 setup. So in my experience 2.6's do only make a subtle difference.


Were you using the same rims with the 2.6 as your 2.3/2.4?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Mass is directly proportional to the energy needed to move an object against gravity. That's basic physics. -deltaPEg=mgh
> 
> That's even more true for rotational mass.


No need to worry about the rotational mass. Newton's first law would suggest the weight of your tires will have nothing to do with how much power is needed to keep them spinning. They'll take a tiny bit more energy to get them going but weight will have no effect on the energy required to keep them spinning at the same rate.

Rolling resistance is all you need to worry about and there are quite a few factors involved with what will roll fast in a specific type of terrain.

Edit: 2.35 to 2.4 is by far my favorite size tire. They have plenty of cush for rocky terrain but they can take hard hits at reasonable pressures without feeling like you're riding on bouncy balloons. Wide tires don't have more grip (see laws of friction). Molding with the terrain can help traction in some situations but I found they just don't consistently bite when I need them to. If I weren't an aggressive downhill rider 2.6 would be nice to smooth out rocky trails.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Hmm, yea, I'd say go ahead and go plus. You definitely need the mental training to ignore bumps after riding gravel. 

Once you train your mind to look at small obstacles as no big deal, and train your body to stay loose even if you purposely hit them dead on, you get to the point where swapping to narrower tires + full suspension elevates you to another level above a plus-tire equipped HT, in terms of comfort (and capability).

My experience is on a 140mm FS bike that originally came with plus tires.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> They'll take a tiny bit more energy to get them going


The increased energy to accelerate makes a big difference unless your rides take place on flat terrain at constant velocity. Most terrain requires a lot of speed changes and climbing requires overcoming the acceleration of gravity. Also weight affects rolling resistance ( more material to deform means more hysteresis).


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> Hmm, yea, I'd say go ahead and go plus. You definitely need the mental training to ignore bumps after riding gravel.
> 
> Once you train your mind to look at small obstacles as no big deal, and train your body to stay loose even if you purposely hit them dead on, you get to the point where swapping to narrower tires + full suspension elevates you to another level above a plus-tire equipped HT, in terms of comfort (and capability).
> 
> My experience is on a 140mm FS bike that originally came with plus tires, where I switched to mullet with 29er just up front then finally to 29er on both ends.


Oh f*ck off, you pretentious dweeb.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

Varaxis said:


> Hmm, yea, I'd say go ahead and go plus. You definitely need the mental training to ignore bumps after riding gravel.
> 
> Once you train your mind to look at small obstacles as no big deal, and train your body to stay loose even if you purposely hit them dead on, you get to the point where swapping to narrower tires + full suspension elevates you to another level above a plus-tire equipped HT, in terms of comfort (and capability).
> 
> My experience is on a 140mm FS bike that originally came with plus tires, where I switched to mullet with 29er just up front then finally to 29er on both ends.


Full sus is tempting but I think I will only go full squish if (hopefully when) I move somewhere else. This might sound ridicoulus to some people but a big plus for the HT frame i'm looking at is that I can fit two water bottles with a decently sized half frame bag. :lol: 
At this point i'm more about mile crunching and just riding. If I lived somewhere with lots of trails and big mountains i'm sure that would change.
When I had a full sus back in the day my riding was definitely downhill and trail focused (and I also rode dirt jumpers and BMX before that). But then I became bored with it because the terrain just sucks for that and went through a road phase (which was also boring). Then got a gravel bike and I realized that I can do the distance riding thing purely off road too, and also realized that a gravel bike is simply not enough... :madman:

I also thought that bigger tyres can absorb certain things that suspension can't. Or is that BS?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> The increased energy to accelerate makes a big difference unless your rides take place on flat terrain at constant velocity. Most terrain requires a lot of speed changes and climbing requires overcoming the acceleration of gravity. Also weight affects rolling resistance ( more material to deform means more hysteresis).


Weight doesn't effect rolling resistance. Tire construction, rubber compound and tread pattern does. You want deflection to absorb the trail but to much deflection will cause the tire to push back as it bottoms near the rim. Entirely terrain depended on what will roll faster. A fat 2.5 DH tire will roll through seriously rough terrain faster than a 2.2 XC tire. If it's a smoother trail the 2.2 XC tire will be faster by a long shot.

Heavier tires will have more inertia to roll you through rough terrain. I'd think there would be a zero net loss in energy vs a lighter tire that will be more likely to stop into an obstacle.

You don't accelerate from gravity. If your speed remains the same there's no extra energy required to turn a heavier tire. Of course you are carrying more weight uphill but a few hundred grams is worth next to nothing in terms of how much it will slow you down from gravity alone.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> Weight doesn't effect rolling resistance.


"Beyond materials, perhaps the single most important factor in tire design impactingrolling resistance is the mass. Since the deformation of rubber throughout the tire is theprimary source for all energy dissipation responsible for rolling resistance, removal ofrubber material will reduce the rolling resistance." - T. J. LaClair The Pneumatic Tire ch. 12


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I gotta admit that jeremy's mixing of layman terms with scientific terms confused me too, but I don't think anything he's said can be argued.

HollyBoni, what do you expect big tires to absorb that narrower ones + suspension can't? I find that plus struggled to find traction since it bounced/floated. I have way more traction and control in stuff like this (and a wider variety of trails):


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

Varaxis said:


> HollyBoni, what do you expect big tires to absorb that narrower ones + suspension can't? I find that plus struggled to find traction since it bounced/floated. I have way more traction and control in stuff like this (and a wider variety of trails):


Dunno, smaller hits and "chatter"? It's just something i've heard a few times (from Jeff Jones for example, but it seems like that dude has some radical views ), but I have no idea if it's actually true, that's why I asked.  
I'm not talking about going plus tho, "just" 2.6.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I think it's more mental than physical. You're more inclined to use more of the trail, rather than only the smoothest part. For example, if you come across double track, you might be inclined to ride in the existing tire tracks where there is less weed growth. With plus, you'd see opportunity to riding the middle, or the more overgrown side. Things that might crackle when ridden over, and maybe entwined in your bike, you might fearlessly plow into with big tires.

When I do the same on my current narrower set of tires, I don't feel like the roughness makes it less enjoyable. It's the opposite for me. On both plus and narrower tires, seeking the rough path is more enjoyable. I've even crossed tilled/plowed fields on both, and I recall it being hard to ride on both set of tires, but maybe because I successfully did it on plus tires first, I'm prepared with the attitude that it's possible on narrower, hence no problems.

That's why I say, go ahead. I call 2.6 plus sized still. It's more of a mental advantage, which is still a big deal. The mental thing is already baked into me, so I'm just after objective physical advantage. Coming off of gravel bikes, I bet you still avoid bumps, and slow down for unavoidable bumps, when the bike should be capable enough to ride over most of them without drama.

Example below of how plus tires made me inclined to plow through overgrown trails, which had quite a bit of chatter due to the undergrowth. These trails were on the way to being reclaimed by nature, with funding cuts to land management.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> "Beyond materials, perhaps the single most important factor in tire design impactingrolling resistance is the mass. Since the deformation of rubber throughout the tire is theprimary source for all energy dissipation responsible for rolling resistance, removal ofrubber material will reduce the rolling resistance." - T. J. LaClair The Pneumatic Tire ch. 12


I have no doubt that's true for pavement and other hard smooth surfaces.

For off-road we need deflection to absorb and mold over terrain without losing forward momentum instead of pushing up on the weight of the bike and rider. This is primarily decided by your tire pressure and volume rather than construction.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

cmg said:


> I totally disagree with this.
> 
> I feel my Fattie comes alive at speed, whether lm what you term "fast" is another matter. Maybe l just man-handle my bikes more as l come from an Enduro Motorcycle background.
> 
> Either way, lve always put the fattest tyres l could on my bikes, its how l roll ;-), different strokes for different folks.


Then win races on it?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> I gotta admit that jeremy's mixing of layman terms with scientific terms confused me too, but I don't think anything he's said can be argued.
> 
> HollyBoni, what do you expect big tires to absorb that narrower ones + suspension can't? I find that plus struggled to find traction since it bounced/floated. I have way more traction and control in stuff like this (and a wider variety of trails):
> 
> ...


Suspension is far to slow to react and has tons of friction relative to a tire. A tire reacts instantly with practically zero friction to absorbing irregular terrain. The idea is to keep as much forward inertia as possible. If bumps push you vertically that is lost energy. Try pumping up your tires to max with open suspension vs using the correct tire pressure with ridged suspension. Suspension mostly helps on bigger hits and higher speed but no doubt tires and suspension work together for best results.

Plus tires do float on loose terrain. They bounce if your tire pressure is to high but at that point it's easy to rim strike at downhill speeds.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Fajita Dave said:


> No need to worry about the rotational mass. Newton's first law would suggest the weight of your tires will have nothing to do with how much power is needed to keep them spinning. They'll take a tiny bit more energy to get them going but weight will have no effect on the energy required to keep them spinning at the same rate.


I believe that's a misnomer, because our pedal-strokes are not a steady impulse, they are pulses and you are very slightly speeding up and slowing down, then there's the aspect of fighting gravity vertically, so you aren't just accelerating and decelerating forwards, but upwards. Then there's the forces you fight making turns. While the steady-state theoretical physics do agree with what you are saying, I do not believe they are what's really happening on rides. You might have portions that lend themselves more to the steady-state, but the more "mountain bike" the terrain, the less I think this would apply.

My gravel racing on 3.5" fattie tires is an interesting study in the effects of aero, rolling resistance and other factors coming to critical points. On pavement, rolling resistance is massively more than the guys on gravel bikes. On actual gravel/dirt roads, it's about the same. I say this because I'm hanging with the first 5-7 riders and maintaining that position. Wind resistance is the biggest issue by far though and it never goes away. Drafting makes it possible to maintain position, but if the other riders are smart they can wear me down by rotating the peleton. I fight back getting in line with the guy that just came off the front of the peleton, but coordinated efforts can destroy me. There are other things I can do, like go super-tight in downhill and other turns, where they can't follow, again letting the wind resistance wear them down a bit. While I can't totally control those factors, I have *some* control over the wind and staying in tight formation on short pavement lets me manage that a bit. What I can't fight is the rotating mass of my wheels and tires. So like you say, in a steady state, it's not the biggest issue, but once you start dealing with any speed chance, whether it be from a climb, a turn, having to close a gap, getting too close and hitting brakes, whatever, it requires more effort to make that up on the heavier tires/wheels. That's an effect that I try to minimize, but ultimately, I don't have control over it. If heavier tires and wheels carry speed was faster, that's what we'd see in racing, but it's the light wheels and tires that are sought after. Even in motorsports, they go for the smallest possible wheels, if a car comes with 20s, they are looking to put on 18s, maybe even 17s if possible, because the car will be faster with less rotating mass.

We do seem to have a situation in mtb where the diameter/radius helps to a certain extent, 29er seems to be a sweet spot for XC racing, but I've noticed the opposite happen when I went with 29er for enduro, enduro-worthy tires and rims add so much rotational mass that the bike becomes a lot less fun to ride, for the same reason a fat-bike is a drunken mess on the trails in the summer at speed. It's not that you can't ride it and not that it won't be faster in some situations, but it's a massive change from an XC 29er to enduro 29er and you go past the point of diminishing returns right away in terms of being able to go fast anywhere but the steep DHs.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Jayem said:


> I believe that's a misnomer, because our pedal-strokes are not a steady impulse, they are pulses and you are very slightly speeding up and slowing down, then there's the aspect of fighting gravity vertically, so you aren't just accelerating and decelerating forwards, but upwards. Then there's the forces you fight making turns. While the steady-state theoretical physics do agree with what you are saying, I do not believe they are what's really happening on rides. You might have portions that lend themselves more to the steady-state, but the more "mountain bike" the terrain, the less I think this would apply.


The pulses aren't relevant because the heavier mass will maintain it's velocity. A lighter rotating wheel will decelerate more between pulses of the pedal strokes. Net energy required is the same even if it's uphill.

There's probably some losses somewhere but anything within a reasonable weight I can't imagine being any real world difference. Like between 650 and 1000 gram tires.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Fajita Dave said:


> The pulses aren't relevant because the heavier mass will maintain it's velocity. A lighter rotating wheel will decelerate more between pulses of the pedal strokes. Net energy required is the same even if it's uphill.
> 
> There's probably some losses somewhere but anything within a reasonable weight I can't imagine being any real world difference. Like between 650 and 1000 gram tires.


I can't think of any racing discipline where "heavier mass maintaining velocity" wins over lighter rotational mass. I believe the theoretical perfect "steady state" just doesn't exist.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> I have no doubt that's true for pavement and other hard smooth surfaces.
> 
> For off-road we need deflection to absorb and mold over terrain without losing forward momentum instead of pushing up on the weight of the bike and rider. This is primarily decided by your tire pressure and volume rather than construction.


It's true for rough surfaces too. Adding mass (more rubber, heavier cord, etc) decreases deflection typically but if you offset that by lowering pressure you now have the same deflection but more mass going through that deflection, hence greater hysteresis.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

The other issue I ran into with my enduro 29er was I had to slow down earlier on tight turns when carrying a lot of speed. If I didn't, my bike would skid sideways towards the outside of the turn, because the gyroscopic force simply pulled it that way. So with every turn, I had to slow down more, then make that up again out of the turn, which required more effort. An enduro 29er could be faster on some courses, but my point is this issue will affect bikes with more rotating mass. You might think you are getting something in some spots by being able to coast more up a hill carrying extra speed, but you lose out more in other places.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Jayem said:


> I can't think of any racing discipline where "heavier mass maintaining velocity" wins over lighter rotational mass. I believe the theoretical perfect "steady state" just doesn't exist.


Of course not. That's why XC race tires are still lighter weight than other MTB tires. No one is winning world cups with Dave's 1000 g tires.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Jayem said:


> The other issue I ran into with my enduro 29er was I had to slow down earlier on tight turns when carrying a lot of speed. If I didn't, my bike would skid sideways towards the outside of the turn, because the gyroscopic force simply pulled it that way. So with every turn, I had to slow down more, then make that up again out of the turn, which required more effort. An enduro 29er could be faster on some courses, but my point is this issue will affect bikes with more rotating mass. You might think you are getting something in some spots by being able to coast more up a hill carrying extra speed, but you lose out more in other places.


Yeah, testing out different set-ups I was surprised how much a heavy tire+insert can slow you down trying to weave down a tight descent even with no pedaling involved.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Of course not. That's why XC race tires are still lighter weight than other MTB tires. No one is winning world cups with Dave's 1000 g tires.


Because you still need to carry that weight uphill which is where most of their time is made up in racing. It just has nothing to do with it being rotating mass. Generally heavier tires are also built more for downhill. For anything that isn't bike park downhill kind of rough a supple construction tire with shallow tread will have less rolling resistance.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Jayem said:


> The other issue I ran into with my enduro 29er was I had to slow down earlier on tight turns when carrying a lot of speed. If I didn't, my bike would skid sideways towards the outside of the turn, because the gyroscopic force simply pulled it that way. So with every turn, I had to slow down more, then make that up again out of the turn, which required more effort. An enduro 29er could be faster on some courses, but my point is this issue will affect bikes with more rotating mass. You might think you are getting something in some spots by being able to coast more up a hill carrying extra speed, but you lose out more in other places.


Gyroscopic forces will not make tires wash out or push you wide and they are miniscule with the weight of bicycle tires at bicycle downhill speeds. The extra weight will take a little bit more effort to slow down but that has nothing to do with gyroscopic force. If you're comparing the handling of two totally different bikes with different wheel sizes your comment has zero relevance.

Counter-steering will instantly initiate a corner and gyroscopic forces have next to no effect on it. The bikes geometry will greatly effect how the bike responds to sudden direction changes and wheel size is not a major factor.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> It just has nothing to do with it being rotating mass.


Acceleration (happens a ton in XC racing) and rolling resistance are reasons to lower rotating mass.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Acceleration (happens a ton in XC racing) and rolling resistance are reasons to lower rotating mass.


No doubt there are a ton of accelerations in racing which is another reason why light tires are good for racers besides just being less weight to carry uphill. There's also a point where if you don't need it for durability why would you run something heavier?

All I'm trying to get at it people seriously blow up the whole rotating mass thing when it's really not something they should bother taking into consideration for tire choice. There's to many other factors that's are far more important than a few grams.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

Jayem said:


> Then win races on it?


Whats that got do with my post? or the OP?

was just stating my opinion.......which is different to yours

different strokes for different folks


----------



## Outhouse (Jul 26, 2019)

Fajita Dave said:


> Suspension is far to slow to react and has tons of friction relative to a tire. A tire reacts instantly with practically zero friction to absorbing irregular terrain. The idea is to keep as much forward inertia as possible. If bumps push you vertically that is lost energy. Try pumping up your tires to max with open suspension vs using the correct tire pressure with ridged suspension. Suspension mostly helps on bigger hits and higher speed but no doubt tires and suspension work together for best results.
> 
> Plus tires do float on loose terrain. They bounce if your tire pressure is to high but at that point it's easy to rim strike at downhill speeds.


Sage advise.

I have a 3 mile drop into a river canyon that is a 150 ish year old wagon road, that is bedrock and rutty filled with cobble of all sizes.

My hard tail with proper inflation will almost ride smoother then my FS with just slightly more inflated tires. It removes all small chatter that numbs your hands and smoothes out the ride dramatically


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Fajita Dave said:


> All I'm trying to get at it people seriously blow up the whole rotating mass thing when it's really not something they should bother taking into consideration for tire choice. There's to many other factors that's are far more important than a few grams.


Non-racer here.

Here is my list of "cares":


Traction enough to keep me off the ground when its slippery out.
Not damaging my rims when I ride through rocks at speed, or off a drop/etc.
Not getting a flat and having to deal with that on the side of the trail

Then again, I've never used "real" plus tires, or actual fat tires. Just saying reasons why I've avoided narrow (under 2.3in wide) tires, and thin casings.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

GT87 said:


> ... Whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


I am glad you found some perspective! think and read, and read what you write twice, before you jet into a crusade! :thumbsup:


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

cmg said:


> Whats that got do with my post? or the OP?
> 
> was just stating my opinion.......which is different to yours
> 
> different strokes for different folks


Your post was in response to mine where I was saying the fat-bike was lethargic and slow in the summer. So I was wondering if you had anything to back it up other than personal opinion, vs. the vast majority of racers, like 99.99%, that are fastest on their XC race rigs with not-fat-bike tires. I like making my race-fatbike as light as possible, but fast in the summer it's not, it suffers from the basic issue of massive rotational mass, which affects everything else (handling, acceleration, long-term fatigue, etc.).


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

Jayem said:


> Your post was in response to mine where I was saying the fat-bike was lethargic and slow in the summer. So I was wondering if you had anything to back it up other than personal opinion, vs. the vast majority of racers, like 99.99%, that are fastest on their XC race rigs with not-fat-bike tires. I like making my race-fatbike as light as possible, but fast in the summer it's not, it suffers from the basic issue of massive rotational mass, which affects everything else (handling, acceleration, long-term fatigue, etc.).


head meet wall


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

Geez I think i'm just gonna get an e-bike. 

:lol:


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

Since this is the weight weenie forum I would argue that the point is to build the lightest bike _in the style_, or find the lightest components for the price, not to build the lightest bike possible. The lightest bike possible would probably be a unicycle on a carbon 12 in wheel, and running it into curbs would be a _terrible_ idea. It's possible to build a weight weenie fat bike or monstercross or downhill bike or whatever. In that sense, the question should be "what are the lightest plus tires and are they on clearance yet"


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> I am glad you found some perspective! think and read, and read what you write twice, before you jet into a crusade!


K

Yes, gained much perspective about your terrible tire choices... very revealing

Cheers

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Outhouse said:


> Sage advise.
> 
> I have a 3 mile drop into a river canyon that is a 150 ish year old wagon road, that is bedrock and rutty filled with cobble of all sizes.
> 
> My hard tail with proper inflation will almost ride smoother then my FS with just slightly more inflated tires. It removes all small chatter that numbs your hands and smoothes out the ride dramatically


On a section like you describe, you're likely riding too slow for FS to even work as intended.

It's like driving over a speed bump at high speed vs driving over it at "proper" speeds. One expects things to be damaged trying to ride it at speed, but in reality suspension has enough travel to soak it up and the driver hardly feels a thing, compared to all the rocking/pitching they feel when going slow.

2.6 tires don't make your bike into a hovercraft compared to 2.3.

HolliBuni, dang money bags here. Can't think of a better adventure bike than an AM FS emtb


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Jayem said:


> Your post was in response to mine where I was saying the fat-bike was lethargic and slow in the summer. So I was wondering if you had anything to back it up other than personal opinion, vs. the vast majority of racers, like 99.99%, that are fastest on their XC race rigs with not-fat-bike tires. I like making my race-fatbike as light as possible, but fast in the summer it's not, it suffers from the basic issue of massive rotational mass, which affects everything else (handling, acceleration, long-term fatigue, etc.).


High class xc/dh racer compared to others who dont race.

There are plenty of times my fat bike is noticeable faster than skinny tires, most noticeably watching them wash out/bog down/get stuck/crash on snow, sand etc while I go flying through the same area on 4.8" tires on a bike that surprising ways little for what it is. Same goes for plus tires.

I have yet to wash out, slide etc on plus or fat. Regardless of what tire I have ran, 2.3/2.4 and smaller have all put me on the ground and wider have let me fly through sections I previously couldnt.

Are they all out fast at a competitive scale compared to narrower, nope. But for the vast majority of cyclists out there if they were so stuck on what's trendy and not, wider tires are better unless your only concern is stava/race times.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Varaxis said:


> HolliBuni, dang money bags here. Can't think of a better adventure bike than an AM FS emtb


How do you manage to form such completely stupid opinions?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

tigris99 said:


> High class xc/dh racer compared to others who dont race.
> 
> There are plenty of times my fat bike is noticeable faster than skinny tires, most noticeably watching them wash out/bog down/get stuck/crash *on snow, sand etc* while I go flying through the same area on 4.8" tires on a bike that surprising ways little for what it is. Same goes for plus tires.


Well yeah...but I don't think we are talking about riding on snow or sand here...


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

goodmojo said:


> The fat tire revolution appeared and I was thinking WTF. how are people riding 1kg tires or even 1.2kg.


How are people riding fat? Not very fast on fire road climbs, that's for sure, but that's no fun, so why get a mtb set up for that anyways?
I ride fat up steep, technical, loose terrain where it is faster and better than anything skinnier or lighter. I also find fat to be faster on tight, rocky, off camber single track where traction loose.

Here is a good video showing how big tires can outperform lighter, unless your main focus of your rides are to crush fire road climbs:


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

singletrackmack said:


> How are people riding fat? Not very fast on fire road climbs, that's for sure, but that's no fun, so why get a mtb set up for that anyways?
> I ride fat up steep, technical, loose terrain where it is faster and better than anything skinnier or lighter. I also find fat to be faster on tight, rocky, off camber single track where traction loose.
> 
> Here is a good video showing how big tires can outperform lighter, unless your main focus of your rides are to crush fire road climbs:


Dang, the fatbike rips! It would be nice to see some times tho. I find that a lot of the time people and these videos talk about slow and fast, but then it turns out that means like 3-5 minutes over an hour. When i'm out on a longer ride and I find a nice spot with a view, i'll sit down, eat a sandwich and rest for like ~20 minutes. :lol:


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

So conclusion here is weight doesn't matter unless racing with accelerations and having to keep the total system light to save a few seconds on climbs.

Tires need to match your terrain, durability requirements and riding preferences. Weight is only a by product of the tire you need and should be ignored over more important metrics. When you choose the right tire for your needs it will be fast and fun to ride regardless of whether it weighs more or not.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> So conclusion here is weight doesn't matter unless racing with accelerations and having to keep the total system light to save a few seconds on climbs.


No of course not. Weight is still directly proportional to the amount of energy required to move it. Rotational weight adds an extra burden under acceleration. Overall weight makes a significant difference in the amount of energy used on a ride.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> No of course not. Weight is still directly proportional to the amount of energy required to move it. Rotational weight adds an extra burden under acceleration. Overall weight makes a significant difference in the amount of energy used on a ride.


Weight is only a burden to get up to speed which only takes a few pedal strokes. We don't use the brakes enough in cycling for it to matter. The only time you lose the energy that you put into the rotating mass of your wheel set is when you use the brakes.

Overall weight only makes a difference uphill and even that is only a tiny amount of time you'll be saving. You can find calculators for it online. 500 grams will only cost you a few seconds over the course of a long climb at the same power output. Besides that you can cut weight in other areas that don't have such a direct impact on traction, rolling resistance, ride comfort and ride quality.

Vary large varience in weight like 20lbs can definitely effect downhill depending on the course. But be realistic since we're talking about tires which could be between about 600 grams to 1,500.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

singletrackmack said:


> How are people riding fat? Not very fast on fire road climbs, that's for sure, but that's no fun, so why get a mtb set up for that anyways?
> I ride fat up steep, technical, loose terrain where it is faster and better than anything skinnier or lighter. I also find fat to be faster on tight, rocky, off camber single track where traction loose.
> 
> Here is a good video showing how big tires can outperform lighter, unless your main focus of your rides are to crush fire road climbs:





HollyBoni said:


> Dang, the fatbike rips! It would be nice to see some times tho. I find that a lot of the time people and these videos talk about slow and fast, but then it turns out that means like 3-5 minutes over an hour. When i'm out on a longer ride and I find a nice spot with a view, i'll sit down, eat a sandwich and rest for like ~20 minutes. :lol:


They rated the rocky and rooty time by subjective handling, not time. They said it was interesting that the fat bike had traction at low speeds, but they chose enduro and XC bike in the end.

I pointed out where plus is inferior to narrower tires in my experience, where floating on top of loose rock is worse than digging into the dirt underneath. My point was that I gained versatility to ride a wider variety of surfaces.

Do you not question why they chose the XC and enduro bike in the end? Maybe they value versatility like I do, over some novelty and the impact of being bigger.

Guessing your idea of loose is like powder, like sand, dust, and snow. I figure "steep" is just an MTB colloquialism for subjective high difficulty.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

GT87 said:


> K
> 
> Yes, gained much perspective about your terrible tire choices... very revealing
> 
> ...


I am glad, you seem a person who needs to learn how to listen! :thumbsup:


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> I am glad, you seem a person who needs to learn how to listen!


Thanks for the life lesson David

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

GT87 said:


> Thanks for the life lesson David
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


You are welcome! Any time  :thumbsup:


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

Davide said:


> You are welcome! Any time




Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Duplicate post


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> They rated the rocky and rooty time by subjective handling, not time...


Here is better video from them for time comparisons.

A few things to consider here with this video:
-On the rocky singletrack section that Neil has been riding trail bikes on for 20years, the fat bike was *9 seconds faster*. 
-Combining just the fun stuff (rocky single track + steep downhill), the fat bike was *6 seconds faster* overall.
-On the steep downhill section, the _hardtail_ fat bike was only 3 seconds slower than the_ full suspension_ trail bikes.








Varaxis said:


> Do you not question why they chose the XC and enduro bike in the end?


Not really. Blake wasn't part of that video. Been watching these guys for years and are a big part of why I recently got fat.

Here they talk about how fat bikes are... fast.








Varaxis said:


> Guessing your idea of loose is like powder, like sand, dust, and snow. I figure "steep" is just an MTB colloquialism for subjective high difficulty.


I should say I can't speak for plus bikes (2.8/3"), but have been on 4.8 Maxxis Minions for about 3 months now. Haven't been fat in snow or sand yet, but here is a example of some typical mountain trails with what my idea of "loose" is.

Here is a flat corner with a type of loose terrain I have found fat excels in. 








It's a mix of a lot of small/medium rocks, sticks, dirt and pine needles about 2 to 3 inches deep.








Here is from the other side going around the same turn while getting a feel for the handling of the new fat a few weeks after I got it. Being a clyde at 6'4, +220lb, the traction of the big tires is amazing. I have been riding big knob, light casing 2.5-2.6" tires since 2008 and have never come anywhere close to going around this turn as fast or carrying as much speed out of this turn than on this fat bike. If you look closely, you can see the front and rear tire deformation providing a massing contact patch. 








These are just some pics of the low elevation trails in the park across the street, so not the steepest at all, but still quite loose, rocky and very narrow in some spots with quick tight turns. Having the big super grippy, low pressure tires deforming over the loose rocks, means much more traction, which means much better braking, which means I can brake later before the turns with more control and carry more speed out of the turns with the extra cornering grip. These trails are crazy mad fun on this slack fat bike 

Some more types of loose on some of the steeper terrain with bigger rocks where the fat bike grips really well in.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> If you look closely, you can see the front and rear tire deformation providing a massing contact patch.


It's cool that fat tires work for you but faster riders are more focused on the tire not folding when going through a corner. Enduro and DH racers do not need a massive contact patch. They're riding on the cornering knobs. They do need a stout casing that's not going to deform in the corners though.

What many people seem not to understand about tires (and inserts) is that you can ride any of them 'fast'. There are people who can do impressive things on fat tires, plus tires, XC race tires, etc. However, characteristics radically change when you're pushing the tire's limit. You and a buddy of the same weight could ride a trail with the same tires at the same pressure; and let's say you're riding 97% percent as fast...your tires may be working fantastic but he may be folding them in corners. Plus and fat tires are too light duty to be used by a fast rider pushing their limit in rough terrain. It's not a mystery why you don't see Loic Bruni flying down Andorra on plus tires.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Jayem said:


> There's always the droves of people on FB and a few here that claim they are "faster" on fatbikes with their fat 4-5" tires.
> 
> And by "fast", they mean slow. They were crazy slow before and these bikes with their tires have given them a slight bit more confidence, but they aren't really pushing it, not even close.
> 
> ...







Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

targnik said:


> Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


There will always be examples of impressive riding on every type of tire. Ride whatever tires you want. Just realize that there is a real reason you're not going to see fat bikes in the EWS.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

There's no EWS racers on 2.6?

Not interested in pushing the fat bike logic, but using EWS racer equipment choice as some metric piques my interest. I'm not one to follow EWS too closely, hence why I ask. Gonna browse some bike checks...


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Varaxis said:


> There's no EWS racers on 2.6?
> 
> Not interested in pushing the fat bike logic, but using EWS racer equipment choice as some metric piques my interest. I'm not one to follow EWS too closely, hence why I ask. Gonna browse some bike checks...


Only a small number of companies make 2.6's in heavy duty casings. EWS racers are mostly using DH or DD type casings. Maxxis 2.6" tires are lighter duty versions of their equivalent 2.3-2.5" counterparts. I believe WTB makes a heavy duty 2.6 but I don't know if anyone in the EWS is using it. To me the width difference between 2.5 and 2.6 is irrelevant, it's the construction style that sets them apart.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

There's a Magic Mary 2.6 in SG, for 27.5 and 29. It's in DH in 27.5 only.

Toughest DHF in 2.6 comes in EXO+ MaxxTerra.

Seeing a lot of 2.5 in the bike checks, with these 2 tire models being the most common, but 2.4 is quite common too (e.g. Assegai 2.5 front and DHR2 2.4 rear). Some 2.35 Magic Marys plus some in other tire brands, like Hutchinson Toro. Short amount of looking around, but only found one article of Jared Graves getting new Butcher 2.6 tires in BLK DMND in summer 2016. Bike check articles rarely point out tire widths...

Hmm, the more I check, the more 2.4 seems to be the most common size. Michelin Wild Enduros and DH 22 both in 2.4... 

Interestingly, Max Chapuis (17th overall mens EWS) chose to run 2.3 Butchers, instead of 2.6 (they only come in these widths for 29er BLCK DMND). Guess it's interesting cause it may mean I'm not crazy/alone, for feeling that a 2.3 front was a clear upgrade after previously trying wider options.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

Fajita Dave said:


> Weight doesn't effect rolling resistance ...


hum ... maybe in a lab where you measure rolling resistance in a friction less environment at a constant speed, then yes, it does not matter: Newton first Law is in action.

On the mountain, with plenty friction, bumps, acceleration and deceleration? Well ... there "rolling resistance" will be significantly influenced by weight (and not for the better if you are going up). As it would be by footprint, tire compound, pressure etc ...


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

Fajita Dave said:


> So conclusion here is weight doesn't matter unless racing with accelerations and having to keep the total system light to save a few seconds on climbs.
> 
> Tires need to match your terrain, durability requirements and riding preferences. Weight is only a by product of the tire you need and should be ignored over more important metrics. When you choose the right tire for your needs it will be fast and fun to ride regardless of whether it weighs more or not.


No, weight DOES matter. Just fill your tubeless tire with water and see what happens.

You end up on a heavier tire because you want a stronger tire. And you want a stronger tire because of the terrain you ride in.

Weight is necessary evil, but believe me if a tire company came up with a magic trick to drop half a pound from a tire and keep the same level of protection everybody would be on it.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Davide said:


> hum ... maybe in a lab where you measure rolling resistance in a friction less environment at a constant speed, then yes, it does not matter: Newton first Law is in action.


Weight increases rolling resistance in both the lab and field. The lab setting is certainly not frictionless.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

My understanding is that weight itself doesn’t change rolling resistance (acceleration yes, rolling, no). 

Thicker casings that weigh more, do have more rubber in them. And the additional rubber takes more energy to deform/conform to the surface of the road/trail/etc. So that does mean they roll slower. 

But it’s the same basic reason that road bikes have been going to wider tires lately, but kind of in reverse. A wider tire deforms a smaller section of the tire than a narrower one, which means less energy is loss in the rubber. 

So heavier and more rolling resistance can go hand in hand, but they aren’t directly linked. Also muddying the waters a bit more, is the fact that lots of the heavier tires also have bigger knobs/ more aggressive tread patterns, and/or softer more grippy rubber. 

But, like others have said. If I could wave a wand and magically have tires with half the weight, and DH casing strength, I’d use that. But in the mean time I mostly care about not damaging my rims, getting flats on rides, and having traction enough to keep me from crashing. So I’ll take my 1000-1200g tires for now.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

jeremy3220 said:


> Weight increases rolling resistance in both the lab and field. The lab setting is certainly not frictionless.


Should have said "under ideal frictionless conditions". Reality is indeed that friction is everywhere. It might matter less in lab conditions designed to minimize friction ... but you cannot ignore it in a rooted dirt trail going uphill :eekster:


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> There's no EWS racers on 2.6?
> 
> Not interested in pushing the fat bike logic, but using EWS racer equipment choice as some metric piques my interest. I'm not one to follow EWS too closely, hence why I ask. Gonna browse some bike checks...





jeremy3220 said:


> There will always be examples of impressive riding on every type of tire. Ride whatever tires you want. Just realize that there is a real reason you're not going to see fat bikes in the EWS.


2.3-2.5" have been the gold standard for high speed DH/Enduro type events forever and that won't change. So for when riding high speed DH and EWS type tracks at +40mph that's pretty much the only way to go as they have been proven to be the best for high speed performance. Doubt plus tires would perform better.

But, when you're not riding high speed race type tracks and riding more natural mtb singletrack, like ones without berms on every turn and even (dare I say it) off camber corners, or trails that are not manicured or even maintained really and have rocky, rooty, loose terrain and are too twisty and tight to ride at dh/ews speeds; then (_going back to the OPs original question_) there is a _benefit_ to riding fat tires on this type of singletrack as they will roll better over the rocks/roots, have more traction in the corners and be faster overall vs skinnier tires. They will be slower on the way back up to go hit the fun stuff again though


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> But, when you're not riding high speed race type tracks and riding more natural mtb singletrack, like ones without berms on every turn and even (dare I say it) off camber corners, or trails that are not manicured or even maintained really and have rocky, rooty, loose terrain and are too twisty and tight to ride at dh/ews speeds; then (_going back to the OPs original question_) there is a _benefit_ to riding fat tires on this type of singletrack as they will roll better over the rocks/roots, have more traction in the corners and be faster overall vs skinnier tires. They will be slower on the way back up to go hit the fun stuff again though


That's most of my rides and I prefer 2.3-2.5" tires. Cornering traction is more about corning knob size, rubber compound, tire stiffness and damping. Going from 2.5 to 2.6 is a 4% increase in width and that's nothing compared to all the other factors. The difference in 2.5 and 2.6 isn't so much width as it is construction style. For most brands 2.6's are really just light duty versions of their respective 2.5 tire. So they have the grip of the 2.5 tire but less damping and are easier to fold in corners and pinch flat. If you're the kind of rider that can get away with 20 psi then the extra volume may work for you. Personally, I can't run 2.6 and up tires without inserts unless I intentionally don't ride aggressively. The pressures I have to run in 2.6" tires without inserts completely negates any benefits and makes the tires pingy/bouncy as hell.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

ocnLogan said:


> My understanding is that weight itself doesn't change rolling resistance (acceleration yes, rolling, no).
> 
> Thicker casings that weigh more, do have more rubber in them. And the additional rubber takes more energy to deform/conform to the surface of the road/trail/etc. So that does mean they roll slower.
> 
> ...


^ This guy gets it.

Weight has nothing to do with rolling resistance what so ever. Tire construction does. Yes, usually a heavier tire will roll slower because of a stiffer construction or beefy tread but it's not rolling slow because it's heavy.

Everything has a point of diminishing returns. For us it's entirely terrain dependent and how you ride it. Assuming the same tread, tire casing and optimum tire pressure a 2.2 tire will roll faster than a 2.6 on hard surfaces because the 2.2 will have less deflection to increase RR. However, that 2.6 will roll faster in rocky terrain as it molds around the terrain rather than pushing bike and rider vertically resulting in a loss of energy. The 2.6 is obviously going to be heavier because it's more material but it undoubtedly rolls faster and smoother because it's a better fit for a specific type of terrain.

It goes back to choose your tire based on your priorities for tread, durability, and intended use. Ignore the weight.

Edit- I am talking about normal mountain biking here. Trials riding you definitely don't want extra weight. Lighter tires will feel more responsive which a lot of people like. You don't want extra weight to carry up hill in XC racing even though pros have gone wider and a little heavier with their wheel sets lately. Everything has an optimum design. For most of us generally riding around people put way to much emphasis on weight and a few hundred grams of rotating mass isn't slowing you down unless you keep hitting the brakes when going uphill.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

Actually, the weight of the wheel/tire combo matters as it is unsprung weight, so it will not f follow the terrain as well as a lighter combo.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

A tire with additional layers of the same material as found in comparable tires, will face proportionally more losses from elastic hysteresis. You can re-word this as saying a tire with more mass, or a tire that weighs more than another, will have more rolling resistance. 

When a material is loaded, like when a tire casing and rubber knob deflecting/deforming, it doesn't return 100% upon being unloaded. A large amount can be attributed to elastic hysteresis, sometimes described as internal friction. The casing has considerable hysteresis, which can be demonstrated by comparing a tire being run almost flat with a fully inflated tire. The rubber compound can be tuned to have different levels of hysteresis, which can be demonstrated by making rubber balls of each compound and seeing how high each ball bounces. The ones that rebound less (don't bounce as high) have more hysteresis, but also have better grip as they bounce off of the ground less ("sticky/tacky" in a different kind of way).

A Nobby Nic 27.5+ tire in the same casing, at the same pressure, on the same drum test, would have about very noticeable difference in a soft rubber compound vs a hard XC-oriented one (22W lost vs 42W in the attached table). How much more would it lose if it had that soft compound but with a more reinforced carcass, such as a DH one? I don't know, since those drum tests seem to max out at measuring 45W.

It's a strawman fallacy to criticize a simple statement, that more weight will get more rolling resistance, by applying it outside of an apples-to-apples comparison, as if people are judging only by weight. Add extra carcass layers, like EXO to DH, and add extra knob height to the tread pattern, and there will be more resistance. The only proper argument is to ask if it even applies to comparison between 2.3 tires and 2.6 tires (of the same model, casing, and rubber compound).

An interesting pattern in the table is how a Hans Dampf 2.35 PaceStar tire is measured to have 30W of rolling resistance, while the TrailStar version is measured to have 42W. The difference between the Nobby Nic 27.5+ (22W vs 42W) and Hans Dampf rubber compound change is dramatic. Things are pointing to plus having an advantage for lighter-duty riding. I'm happy to leave it at this, considering my experience with Plus lacking the versatility to handle heavy-duty riding, even with the heaviest reinforced plus tire on the market (1500g Eddy Current rear).


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> ^ This guy gets it.
> 
> Weight has nothing to do with rolling resistance what so ever. Tire construction does. Yes, usually a heavier tire will roll slower because of a stiffer construction or beefy tread but it's not rolling slow because it's heavy.


This is incorrect. Increasing the mass while keeping the deformation constant will increase rolling resistance due to increased hysterical losses. I already pointed to a scientific source. You may not want to believe it but that doesn't change the science.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> This is incorrect. Increasing the mass while keeping the deformation constant will increase rolling resistance due to increased hysterical losses. I already pointed to a scientific source. You may not want to believe it but that doesn't change the science.


How many watts will that be worth? Maybe 1 or 2 watts when other factors of the tire will have 10x the effect on rolling resistance. What about the net gain you'll have with using the right tire for the terrain you ride? It's extremely clear a lighter tire won't always roll faster which is what brought on the wider tire movement in mountain biking and road cycling.

There's still a massive variety of tire constructions and rubber compounds used. Saying weight will increase rolling resistance is only relevant comparing the same materials used. Not to really be splitting hairs here but the weight still didn't increase RR. The extra material is increasing the loss of energy with deformation, not the weight. If you have a lighter material to construct the tire out of but use more of it would your RR still increase?

Get the right tire for your terrain......


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> How many watts will that be worth? Maybe 1 or 2 watts when other factors of the tire will have 10x the effect on rolling resistance. What about the net gain you'll have with using the right tire for the terrain you ride? It's extremely clear a lighter tire won't always roll faster which is what brought on the wider tire movement in mountain biking and road cycling.
> 
> Get the right tire for your terrain......


You're conflating a few things. 1) Mass is a major contributor to RR period. 2) Width and weight are not the same thing. 3) Rider efficiency and tire RR is not the same thing. 4) RR coefficient is not the same as overall efficiency.

The issue is as a riders you guys think rolling resistance means 'how fast the tire feels'. Talking about RR in isolation is honestly a waste of time for consumers. You're not designing tires, you're riding them. Just find something that seems to roll well.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Maybe he's using rolling resistance as a general term to describe anything that may slow a bicycle rider down, rather than some specific characteristic of a wheel system. Rocks on the ground reduce your rolling efficiency (cause rolling resistance). It's not reflected by the drum test! I can be more efficient on certain terrain with a certain setup! I don't trust the value of such a test to draw conclusions.

You're probably still thinking of rolling resistance as crr. Gotta know your audience sometimes. The strawman fallacy was a hint. IMO, not worth the time.

I'll just say that going to a narrower front tire has added the depth of line choice advantages, allowing me to more precisely choose lines that are noticeably better. It made the trails a significant degree more interesting. I am more engaged with the trail and bike. With the wider tires, it was more like a shut-my-brain-off affair. A blunt attack, vs a sharper precision attack...


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

jeremy3220 said:


> This is incorrect. Increasing the mass while keeping the deformation constant will increase rolling resistance due to increased hysterical losses. I already pointed to a scientific source. You may not want to believe it but that doesn't change the science.


This is exactly what I said. We both agree on the science.

Heavier and more rolling resistance go together often, because weight often is caused by a thicker casing with more hysterical losses. That is similar, but distinct from weight itself being the cause of the rolling resistance. Maybe I am overly precise, but those are different statements.

Again, road bikes have migrated to wider tires lately, because the science proved that the amount of hysterical losses is lower in a wider tire, because of how the contact patch is shaped.

LINK

Even though the wider road tires in the link above are slightly heavier than the narrower tires they actually have less rolling resistance. Even after normalizing for ride comfort... they all have the same rolling resistance (not the heavier ones being more).

But, as already mentioned, mountain biking is a bit harder to apply drum rolling tests to real life, as our trail surface conditions vary so much compared to road riders. And not to mention our tires vary a heck of a lot more as well. So it makes blanket statements much harder to apply.

Like you said, its not just weight, we have rubber compound, tread design and tread height differences. Then we add onto that with casings that are labeled the same, but clearly not the same (like the previously mentioned Maxxis EXO Rekon weighing the same in both 2.4 and 2.6in widths, which shouldn't be possible if they actually had the same tread/casing/etc). And thats not even accounting for the differences in soil/trail condition types.

Just saying its really hard to decouple the effects of one variable from another for mountain bike tires.

Hopefully someday we'll get a propper scientific test that accounts for more of these variables, like road riding did when they started using textured drums (diamond plate) to more closely mimic typical road conditions. I find it kind of fascinating honestly, finally seeing exactly how things interact.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Cornering traction is more about corning knob size, rubber compound, tire stiffness and damping.


Sure all important, but width, Psi limits and the tires ability to conform to the terrain and not ping and bounce off irregularities on the trail and send the bike off course is an extremely important factor in cornering traction as well. I think most all would agree a 2.5" wide with big cornering knobs will corner significantly better than a 2.1" wide tire with big cornering knobs. And if that is the case, then width must play a big roll in cornering traction as well which is why fat tires roll and corner better and are faster on that type of natural, rocky, rooty, tight/twisty singletrack even for experienced riders.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> Sure all important, but width, Psi limits and the tires ability to conform to the terrain and not ping and bounce off irregularities on the trail and send the bike off course is an extremely important factor in cornering traction as well.


This is why 2.6" tires don't work well for me. The pressures needed to keep them alive and not folding in the corners means they're pinging off the trail and losing traction. Width is only important in regards to cornering grip in being able to fit bigger cornering knobs or longitudinal channels. Not much difference going up .1-.2". My 2.4 Rekons have as much or more traction than the 2.6 Rekons they replaced. This is a common remark with these tires too.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Narrower tires definitely dig into the terrain more. Pushing the same force into a smaller surface area is more like cutting with a razor blade vs a butter knife. Wider tires can't dig in with so much surface area causing them to float. The same reason 2.6s ride so nice on rough terrain is the same reason they fold under heavy loads making them a poor choice for being aggressive on. If you pump them up so they don't cave in when riding hard they just get bouncy.

I love 2.4" tires. Just enough cush but they bite into corners and you can flog them hard. 2.3" is even better if it isn't to rocky. 2.2 is great for XC but you really start to lose ride quality and the ability to maintain speed in chunky terrain.


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

jeremy3220 said:


> This is why 2.6" tires don't work well for me. The pressures needed to keep them alive and not folding in the corners means they're pinging off the trail and losing traction.


Just curious, when you tried 2.6s, what width rims did you use?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

HollyBoni said:


> Just curious, when you tried 2.6s, what width rims did you use?


i30. The construction is too light regardless of rim size though. The regular 2.3-2.5 trail casing tires are already a bit too lightly built for me (6'5" 215 lbs). On my 'trail setup' on my enduro bike I run a 2.35" 1015g semi-slick which is just enough to keep the tire from folding in berms at 30 psi.

Also, the semi-slick is perhaps the best example of why width doesn't mean much for cornering traction. Those 2.35 e13 semi-slicks have amazing grip in the corners (way more than something like a 2.6 XR4 or 2.8 Rekon). You're really just relying on one row of knobs. Do you think increasing the width (the amount of rubber not in contact with the ground) is really going to help when the bike is leaned over?

I suspect that for cornering grip in mtb tire tread design you need 1) the tread blocks of the cornering knobs to have sufficient size for stiffness and stability (aka tread block stiffness) and 2) a longitudinal channel (void space) big enough to allow the biting edge of the cornering knobs to exert enough force against the trail surface.


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

jeremy3220 said:


> i30. The construction is too light regardless of rim size though. The regular 2.3-2.5 trail casing tires are already a bit too lightly built for me (6'5" 215 lbs). On my 'trail setup' on my enduro bike I run a 2.35" 1015g semi-slick which is just enough to keep the tire from folding in berms at 30 psi.
> 
> Also, the semi-slick is perhaps the best example of why width doesn't mean much for cornering traction. Those 2.35 e13 semi-slicks have amazing grip in the corners (way more than something like a 2.6 XR4 or 2.8 Rekon). You're really just relying on one row of knobs. Do you think increasing the width (the amount of rubber not in contact with the ground) is really going to help when the bike is leaned over?
> 
> I suspect that for cornering grip in mtb tire tread design you need 1) the tread blocks of the cornering knobs to have sufficient size for stiffness and stability (aka tread block stiffness) and 2) a longitudinal channel (void space) big enough to allow the biting edge of the cornering knobs to exert enough force against the trail surface.


Oh don't ask me questions, I have absolutely no idea, just gathering info. :lol:


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> i30. The construction is too light regardless of rim size though. The regular 2.3-2.5 trail casing tires are already a bit too lightly built for me (6'5" 215 lbs). On my 'trail setup' on my enduro bike I run a 2.35" 1015g semi-slick which is just enough to keep the tire from folding in berms at 30 psi.
> 
> Also, the semi-slick is perhaps the best example of why width doesn't mean much for cornering traction. Those 2.35 e13 semi-slicks have amazing grip in the corners (way more than something like a 2.6 XR4 or 2.8 Rekon). You're really just relying on one row of knobs. Do you think increasing the width (the amount of rubber not in contact with the ground) is really going to help when the bike is leaned over?
> 
> I suspect that for cornering grip in mtb tire tread design you need 1) the tread blocks of the cornering knobs to have sufficient size for stiffness and stability (aka tread block stiffness) and 2) a longitudinal channel (void space) big enough to allow the biting edge of the cornering knobs to exert enough force against the trail surface.









Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

I almost never ride park, lol, but that explains a lot.

Those E13s sure are portly for 2.4s. I have 2.35 Rock Razors ~790g and agree that the semi-slick design is one of the best, and strangely not that popular.

For 2.6s (66mm) I think we have to realize that 30mm internal width is not enough. A 35mm rim is probably better for a 2.4 (61mm), so perhaps to really flog a 2.6, you need at least a 40mm internal width rim.

I find that foam inserts help make the transition between narrow rims and fat tires better, while I save up my dimes for expensive new wheels


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

chomxxo said:


> For 2.6s (66mm) I think we have to realize that 30mm internal width is not enough. A 35mm rim is probably better for a 2.4 (61mm), so perhaps to really flog a 2.6, you need at least a 40mm internal width rim.


Ya, I'm thinking wider would be better. Maybe 50mm? Don't really know how the plus thing works but the rims on my fat are as wide as the tires are tall making folding not really an issue.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> ...You're really just relying on one row of knobs. Do you think increasing the width (the amount of rubber not in contact with the ground) is really going to help when the bike is leaned over?
> 
> I suspect that for cornering grip in mtb tire tread design you need 1) the tread blocks of the cornering knobs to have sufficient size for stiffness and stability (aka tread block stiffness) and 2) a longitudinal channel (void space) big enough to allow the biting edge of the cornering knobs to exert enough force against the trail surface.


Totally agree on both points there, and with the maxxis minions FBF 4.8, there are actually 2 rows of huge cornering knobs to rely on, both with nice big channels giving plenty of space to bite the terrain. Having an extra row of channeled cornering knobs makes the tires feel like they are eating the trail. Also, the fbf knobs are huge and very stiff. The large, spaced out channels really allow for the corners of the knobs to bite and grab dirt and rocks.









You can see here maxxis did a great job with the channeling on these tires.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

OP question, I've done some testing relative to this. It's not by best work, but I've posted it here: https://crankjoy.com/tire-size-shoot-out-29x2-35-vs-29x2-6-vs-27-5x2-8/

My summary statements from the test:

_Based on these results, I'm going to keep 27.5+ mounted. They were just more fun than the other sizes, and the speed advantage to the 2.35 set was small enough that I'm willing to compromise in climbing speed for the superior ride feel.

The 29×2.6 set offered similar composure to the 27.5+ over rough terrain, but it was resistant to mid-corner correction. The 2.6 didn't offer the fun, intuitive feel that the 27.5+ setup had. Additionally, it did not present a noticeable or measurable decrease in rolling resistance. It wasn't bad per se, but I didn't feel that advantage was nearly enough to offset the better handling of the 27.5+ setup elsewhere.

I'd choose the 29 x 2.35 for a dedicated XC race setup. Despite similar overall lap times, XC and endurance races are won and lost on the flats and the climbs, and here is where the 29×2.35 showed and advantage._



Jayem said:


> Then win races on it?


I've won races on my fat bike. Open class no less. I've earned a buckle in the Marji Gesick aboard my fat bike. So I think your assertions regarding how slow they are are overblown. You're implying that they are entirely not viable as race bikes, which I disagree with. Yes, it's slower than my XC race bike...but I don't think that it is slower by much, and only at higher speeds where wind resistance or large/fast impacts come into play.

We've had this discussion before, but once again I am offering a counterpoint to your point. The reason I bring it up is that one should not summarily discount wider tires as slower. Usually, yes they are, but it depends on the surface and the rider weight.

I'll run some back to back testing in the next few weeks...my 24 lb carbon fattie w/ 4.8's VS my 23 lb XC whip, both with similar high end builds and same brand tires and compound. We have a lot of varied terrain here, what type of course would you like to see? Let's quantify it and put this to bed. Then folks can decide if the speed tradeoff is worth their perceived benefits.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

brentos said:


> I'll run some back to back testing in the next few weeks...my 24 lb carbon fattie w/ 4.8's VS my 23 lb XC whip, both with similar high end builds and same brand tires and compound. We have a lot of varied terrain here, what type of course would you like to see? Let's quantify it and put this to bed. Then folks can decide if the speed tradeoff is worth their perceived benefits.


IDK, I really don't think there's any debate to it. They are slower and the results are definitive. While there are sometimes unique situations during a race where you can leverage an advantage of more traction, more rotational inertia, whatever, it never cancels out the negatives of the rotational mass, acceleration, rolling resistance, etc. I've done testing in a variety of races, including XC, cross, gravel, etc. I'm not sure what I'd "like to see", I don't see there being any question about it, otherwise, we'd see top ten and top 5 results in pro XC routinely on fat bikes or plus tires. Same with every other discipline.


----------



## itsky (Jul 26, 2011)

Jayem said:


> IDK, I really don't think there's any debate to it. They are slower and the results are definitive. While there are sometimes unique situations during a race where you can leverage an advantage of more traction, more rotational inertia, whatever, it never cancels out the negatives of the rotational mass, acceleration, rolling resistance, etc. I've done testing in a variety of races, including XC, cross, gravel, etc. I'm not sure what I'd "like to see", I don't see there being any question about it, otherwise, we'd see top ten and top 5 results in pro XC routinely on fat bikes or plus tires. Same with every other discipline.


Let's see that testing, otherwise your assertion about it doesn't mean much.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

brentos said:


> OP question, I've done some testing relative to this. It's not by best work, but I've posted it here: https://crankjoy.com/tire-size-shoot-out-29x2-35-vs-29x2-6-vs-27-5x2-8/
> 
> My summary statements from the test:
> 
> ...


Church!!

Praise be to the plus/fat gods!!

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> i30. The construction is too light regardless of rim size though. The regular 2.3-2.5 trail casing tires are already a bit too lightly built for me (6'5" 215 lbs). On my 'trail setup' on my enduro bike I run a 2.35" 1015g semi-slick which is just enough to keep the tire from folding in berms at 30 psi.
> 
> Also, the semi-slick is perhaps the best example of why width doesn't mean much for cornering traction. Those 2.35 e13 semi-slicks have amazing grip in the corners (way more than something like a 2.6 XR4 or 2.8 Rekon). You're really just relying on one row of knobs. Do you think increasing the width (the amount of rubber not in contact with the ground) is really going to help when the bike is leaned over?
> 
> I suspect that for cornering grip in mtb tire tread design you need 1) the tread blocks of the cornering knobs to have sufficient size for stiffness and stability (aka tread block stiffness) and 2) a longitudinal channel (void space) big enough to allow the biting edge of the cornering knobs to exert enough force against the trail surface.


People blame tires for this.

If your folding tires over on berms you have bad technique.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> You're conflating a few things. 1) Mass is a major contributor to RR period. 2) Width and weight are not the same thing. 3) Rider efficiency and tire RR is not the same thing. 4) RR coefficient is not the same as overall efficiency.
> 
> The issue is as a riders you guys think rolling resistance means 'how fast the tire feels'. Talking about RR in isolation is honestly a waste of time for consumers. You're not designing tires, you're riding them. Just find something that seems to roll well.


Morsa 2.3 is a 1000g tire, rr 22.8. Bonty XR0 is a <700g tire, same rr.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> i30. The construction is too light regardless of rim size though. The regular 2.3-2.5 trail casing tires are already a bit too lightly built for me (6'5" 215 lbs). On my 'trail setup' on my enduro bike I run a 2.35" 1015g semi-slick which is just enough to keep the tire from folding in berms at 30 psi.


i30 sucks for 2.6. I'm only 160lbs; can't imagine how bad riding them at 215lbs would be. I use i35-38mm depending on the tire's knob profile. No wonder they didn't work out for you. I mean, how can you make such a bush league mistake and then come on here and tell us how it is like you're some expert?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

tigris99 said:


> People blame tires for this.
> 
> If your folding tires over on berms you have bad technique.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


Nah, you're just too slow to know what I'm talking about.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

TylerVernon said:


> Morsa 2.3 is a 1000g tire, rr 22.8. Bonty XR0 is a <700g tire, same rr.


Cool


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

TylerVernon said:


> i30 sucks for 2.6. I'm only 160lbs; can't imagine how bad riding them at 215lbs would be. I use i35-38mm depending on the tire's knob profile. No wonder they didn't work out for you. I mean, how can you make such a bush league mistake and then come on here and tell us how it is like you're some expert?


You're the size of a child, no wonder you can get away with such light duty tires. How can you make such a little league mistake by coming on here and telling us how it is like you're a full grown man?


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

jeremy3220 said:


> You're the size of a child, no wonder you can get away with such light duty tires. How can you make such a little league mistake by coming on here and telling us how it is like you're a full grown man?


Kind of harsh, but there's some truth. I can ride lighter and smaller tires on my Switchblade, but at 225lb I currently have a 2.6 Butcher Grid Trail on a 36mm rim and a Purgatory 2.6 Grid on a 29mm rim. Obviously on the downs in loose over hard, this combo rocks. On the flats it's not bad. Most of the trails I ride are chunky. They are feel good tires.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> You're the size of a child, no wonder you can get away with such light duty tires. How can you make such a little league mistake by coming on here and telling us how it is like you're a full grown man?


So, what other obvious noob mistakes do you make and then type on your keyboard like you are some expert? It's common on the internet but usually people are better at not broadcasting their ignorance.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

tigris99 said:


> People blame tires for this.
> 
> If your folding tires over on berms you have bad technique.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


So let's add this up: bad riding technique, blames tire construction while using them on narrow rims, doesn't understand rolling resistance....I'd like to see some video of this expert riding down a trail; probably dead sailors jumps and stops every km to catch his breath.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

TylerVernon said:


> So, what other obvious noob mistakes do you make and then type on your keyboard like you are some expert? It's common on the internet but usually people are better at not broadcasting their ignorance.


I call people out on the internet for making bush league mistakes when their experience doesn't align with mine as an adult trapped in an eight year old's body.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

It would be nice if there were more charts like what Varaxis posted. That Morsa is so fast it's amazing. It's like riding an xc tire with enduro cornering ability. Since it's discontinued, makes me want to know what Vittoria has in store as its replacement.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> I call people out on the internet for making bush league mistakes when their experience doesn't align with mine as an adult trapped in an eight year old's body.


I agree, you are much like an eight year old. Thanks for clearing that up. You are released from this conversation; go forth and shytepost elsewhere, brave expert.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

TylerVernon said:


> probably dead sailors jumps and stops every km to catch his breath.


You rang!? 

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Boys, boys, boys..... You're both right.

Here's a picture of my baby to make everyone smile.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CCSS (Apr 6, 2004)

Interesting perspective/science/opinion in this thread, but going back the the OP’s original question: “Do people really benefit that much from 2.5-3.0 tires? Are we crazy for wanting the lightest tires possible?” - I can say, unequivocally, yes. For me.

Turns out I ride the exact same central Texas limestone techy, chunky, ledgy stuff as the OP. Also turns out that I ride 100% rigid singlespeed. 

So I get that I’m a bit of a corner case w/out gears or squish, but for folks like me, plus tires are fantastic.

One thing no one mentioned in this entire thread is rollover. For the constant rock gardens here, 29x3.25 rollover is magic. Add the braking, turning and climbing traction, and the cush, and I get a winning equation.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

TylerVernon said:


> So let's add this up: bad riding technique, blames tire construction while using them on narrow rims, doesn't understand rolling resistance....I'd like to see some video of this expert riding down a trail; probably dead sailors jumps and stops every km to catch his breath.







Now post yours.

Also I'm a tire engineer (automotive) and posted references for my statements already. A big part of my job is keeping semi-finished materials in weight tolerance because it's important for RR, and OE customers have strict standards for weight but apparently you know more than everyone in the tire industry.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

I try to ride light tires but being a Clyde, I have different needs. Yes, on a lighter tire with a relatively thin casing, you can suffer from too much rebound and loss of traction to prevent flats and tire squirm at the required higher pressures or you suffer from the aforementioned issues. Very aggressive riders that weigh less but are crushing double black have the same needs. Over biked is relative, but if I riding smoother trails, I would be on lighter tires. I could go 2.4 DHR2/2.3 Aggressor, but it’s loose here and the bigger tires feel good. The Purg has really surprised me - it’s more like a 2.5 and it’s not squirmy even on a 30mm rim. It’s also 990gm. I don’t want to flatten out my rear tire too much, but my big butt will, and I like a rounded profile on the rear. 2.6 XR5/2.4 SE4 are faster and lighter but don’t have the casing stiffness or traction. B+ 2.8 Rekons suck as well as any other light high volume tire for this Clyde. If I’m riding 700+gm tires, I’m in the Midwest on a short travel 29er or hardtail. But if I’m on a hardtail or rigid primarily, 3.0 rocks. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

Geez some of you carry on like wankers just cause someone has a different idea/opinion


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

cmg said:


> Geez some of you carry on like wankers just cause someone has a different idea/opinion


Don't you mean 'wrong opinion'?



Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

targnik said:


> Don't you mean 'wrong opinion'?


stop being a wanker ......... ;-)


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

cmg said:


> stop being a wanker ......... ;-)


Again,

That's just your opinion...

& again you're wrong!



Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Fajita Dave said:


> No doubt there are a ton of accelerations in racing which is another reason why light tires are good for racers besides just being less weight to carry uphill. There's also a point where if you don't need it for durability why would you run something heavier?
> 
> All I'm trying to get at it people seriously blow up the whole rotating mass thing when it's really not something they should bother taking into consideration for tire choice. There's to many other factors that's are far more important than a few grams.







Roadie content but it still mostly applies. Seems rotational weight isn't the big deal that most people (including me) always thought it was.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Roadie content but it still mostly applies. Seems rotational weight isn't the big deal that most people (including me) always thought it was.


Newton's third law in action - Conservation of Momentum. We don't do enough accelerating and decelerating in cycling for it to matter much.

Within reasonable weights that we'd see in bike components it will effect suspension a little bit but tires themselves are the most effecient suspension component on the bike! So you can gain a lot of performance going to a higher volume tire at the expense of slightly slower reacting suspension due to the added weight.

You will also be carrying more weight up hill but the construction and tread makes a dramatic difference compared to around 300 grams per tire for XC vs Enduro. It's the tread and stiff construction slowing the Enduro tire down much more so than weight.

Everything has a point of optimum effeciency of course. Fat tires work in rocky rough terrain allowing the tire to mold around the terrain which maintains your forward momentum! You simply can't match that with skinny tires in rough terrain.


----------



## Dave Mac (Jan 9, 2017)

2.6 rekons are fairly light


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Roadie content but it still mostly applies. Seems rotational weight isn't the big deal that most people (including me) always thought it was.


I really want to believe this but the testing methods and the self-interest in the heavier tires kinda "make me go hmmmm....".


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> We don't do enough accelerating and decelerating in cycling for it to matter much.


Looking at Strava data I'd say the opposite is true. On tight XC terrain there are wild fluctuations in speed.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

BmanInTheD said:


> I really want to believe this but the testing methods and the self-interest in the heavier tires kinda "make me go hmmmm....".


Time yourself on a decent length section of trail, at least a mile but maybe shorter for the climb. One climb and one flatish. Get some stick on automotive wheel weights. Stick about 300 grams evenly balanced on the inside of each rim. Try to match the effort level and time yourself on the same runs to see the difference. This will take out all variables of using a different tire and simply test the effect of weight.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Looking at Strava data I'd say the opposite is true. On tight XC terrain there are wild fluctuations in speed.


Are you comparing the same bike with different tires? Is this XC terrain pretty smooth?


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Now post yours.


Nice. I like to see more of others real world experiences. Seems like a lot of big hat no cattle here sometimes.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> Are you comparing the same bike with different tires? Is this XC terrain pretty smooth?


I'm just referring to your comment about acceleration. The particular loop I looked at data for is rocky but not technically difficult, flattish but a decent amount of turning. If the surface wasn't as rough it would be a fairly flowy trail but even then there was constant large fluctuations in speed. There are very few trails near me where I'm pedaling at a relatively constant speed for any stretch of time.

I've been playing around with my insert setup on my hardtail. I just swapped the rear from a light 90g insert to a 260g insert. Initially when pedaling around the driveway it wasn't that noticeable. It was on the trail though that I noticed my energy getting sapped and not having the pep when trying to get back up to speed. This trail (different from the other I mentioned) has tons of grade and direction changes. This trail while not that difficult tends to drain newer riders because there is so much acceleration required and being able to maintain as much speed as possible as the trail turns back uphill is huge.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> I'm just referring to your comment about acceleration. The particular loop I looked at data for is rocky but not technically difficult, flattish but a decent amount of turning. If the surface wasn't as rough it would be a fairly flowy trail but even then there was constant large fluctuations in speed. There are very few trails near me where I'm pedaling at a relatively constant speed for any stretch of time.
> 
> I've been playing around with my insert setup on my hardtail. I just swapped the rear from a light 90g insert to a 260g insert. Initially when pedaling around the driveway it wasn't that noticeable. It was on the trail though that I noticed my energy getting sapped and not having the pep when trying to get back up to speed. This trail (different from the other I mentioned) has tons of grade and direction changes. This trail while not that difficult tends to drain newer riders because there is so much acceleration required and being able to maintain as much speed as possible as the trail turns back uphill is huge.


The insert is a massive change to the structure of the tire. The tire also has less room for deflection to absorb any rocks or roots which may cause losses of energy pushing you upward rather than forming better with the terrain and keeping you rolling forward. You're assuming the weight is the sole reason it might be draining your energy without taking into account the other variables.

Trails with lots of accelerations will always be more draining. If you add some stick on weights like I mentioned above and did back to back tests with a power meter and heart rate monitor I'd be very curious to see the results.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Fajita Dave said:


> *tires themselves are the most effecient suspension component on the bike*... Fat tires work in rocky rough terrain allowing the tire to mold around the terrain which maintains your forward momentum! You simply can't match that with skinny tires in rough terrain.


Going back to the OPs original questions, this is why the extra weight of fat tires is worth it. It is simply faster on certain terrain which is most often the funnest parts of the ride 



Fajita Dave said:


> Newton's third law in action - Conservation of Momentum. We don't do enough accelerating and decelerating in cycling for it to matter much.


This, and as you pointed out, with fatter tires we are able to carry more speed in rocky/rough terrain that slows us down and keep more speed out of tight corners that also slow us down as well. This is why fat bikes were 9 seconds faster than the full-sus trailbikes on the rough/rocky flat to downhill singletrack portion in the video from GMBN. 
9 seconds is a lot considering all the other variables in that video.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

jeremy3220 said:


> Looking at Strava data I'd say the opposite is true. On tight XC terrain there are wild fluctuations in speed.


Yeah, I'd say his statement is wildly inaccurate.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Fajita Dave said:


> The insert is a massive change to the structure of the tire. The tire also has less room for deflection to absorb any rocks or roots which may cause losses of energy pushing you upward rather than forming better with the terrain and keeping you rolling forward. You're assuming the weight is the sole reason it might be draining your energy without taking into account the other variables.
> 
> Trails with lots of accelerations will always be more draining. If you add some stick on weights like I mentioned above and did back to back tests with a power meter and heart rate monitor I'd be very curious to see the results.


Translation:

I, "Fajita Dave", believe that a tire insert makes massive changes. I also believe it reduces the tire's susp travel and ability to deform around rocks and roots, resulting in suspension losses. You're not accounting these suspension losses with your focus on elastic hysteresis.

Stop-and-go style riding will always be less efficient, especially with additional mass. If you want to prove that you're so smart, please entertain me by taking on the burden of proving this, and go do this experiment with consumer-grade measurement tools.

====

Sounds like a parroting of Jan Heine's findings. I don't argue it. A tire that doesn't deform around a bump, and rides up it, is essentially riding up a tiny hill. It all adds up. Riding through sand feels as hard as it does cause there's a hill directly in front of the tire that you're virtually climbing. A fat tire reduces the size of that "hill" since it doesn't sink as much.

On the other hand, jeremy3220 is putting this into more hardcore MTB context. A FS mtb's suspension works properly at a higher speed to do the same for bigger bumps, preventing suspension losses. Tires that fold too easily hold the rider back from properly utilizing the more advanced susp that was specifically tasked for the job.

Regarding how weight fits into the context, you can argue that the weight merely acts like a flywheel and isn't inefficient. I'd argue that all that weight requires a lot more physical effort from the body to carry it up the hill, gaining a lot more potential energy per unit of elevation. A lot of energy is wasted going into the brake pads when you descend that elevation though. The extra aero drag you face on the descent also wastes it.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Massive change to the tire's construction might be an overstatement but depending on the insert used it could have a greater effect on sidewall deflection than a different tire construction itself. To many variables with the insert used in combination with a specific tire at a specific pressure for a specific terrain being ridden.

I'm not putting a $500 power meter on my Enduro bike so the only consumer grade measurement tool would be a heart rate monitor and a stop watch. I still challenge anyone to the above and add some stick on weights to their wheels to test it themselves. It will only cost a few dollars and everyone knows about how quick they should be on a section of trail they know well. None of you are going to believe me if I post my results anyway.

I've already done it quite a few years ago before I tracked rides with GPS. The results were practically identical between my normal riding setup and 400g of weights on each wheel on a 3.6 mile loop with 350ft of climbing. I specifically did this little test 10 years ago when I first got into mountain biking to see if I should go with a heavier more grippy tire. My fitness sucked and I didn't want anything making it harder. From the beginning I was skeptical that 400g between a 600g XC tire and a 1000g DH tire would make any real difference. My 
expirement isolated all other variables as the rotating weight was the only change and there was no statistically significant difference between my times on the 3.6 mile loop. However, since I proved the weight didn't matter and bought some DH tires the tire construction and tread sure as hell rolled a lot slower. Which I did consider but with my inexperience in mtb components I was pretty surprised they were that much slower. I might do it again just to confirm what I've already known for the past decade.

As I also said above everything has an optimum usage. If your riding smooth trails or pavement using fatter tires than your terrain calls for will be slower. Fatter tires means there's more material to deflect so they will roll slower.

Shocks and forks are horribly inefficient compared to a tire. There's way to much friction, binding, spring pressure and mass to get moving. For absorbing the "texture" of a trail the suspension is just starting to react as the event is just about over in comparison to a tire that reacts instantly. Suspension is great but it has it's limitations just like tires do. When tires start getting to large they cave in way to easy on hard impacts or heavy loads. If you pump more psi in they get to bouncy. Goes back to that optimum usage window so buy the tire that fits your usage.

Carrying more weight up hill will obviously be slower but it doesn't matter that it's rotating unless you keep hitting the brakes. Tight curvy trails that require braking into corners will also be harder with heavier tires because braking just sucked energy out of the system. Which you now need to get back up to speed at corner exit. I also have no doubt even if you don't brake for corners there's some energy lost with knobs digging into the dirt for cornering. Energy that you'll again need to put back into the system.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> The insert is a massive change to the structure of the tire. The tire also has less room for deflection to absorb any rocks or roots which may cause losses of energy pushing you upward rather than forming better with the terrain and keeping you rolling forward. You're assuming the weight is the sole reason it might be draining your energy without taking into account the other variables.


Tire inserts typically increase deformation of the tire because you run less pressure (*typically*). According to Cushcore they improve rolling resistance (I'm skeptical as to how broadly that applies). They also have more damping than air so I could see that hurting rolling resistance in some cases. What I feel is the weight while accelerating though. When I say playing around in the driveway it's not that noticeable I really mean it's not that bad. I can feel the difference in weight in the driveway. You can actually feel it just spinning the wheel by turning the cranks by hand.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Fajita Dave said:


> I'm not putting a $500 power meter on my Enduro bike so the only consumer grade measurement tool would be a heart rate monitor and a stop watch. I still challenge anyone to the above and add some stick on weights to their wheels to test it themselves. It will only cost a few dollars and everyone knows about how quick they should be on a section of trail they know well. None of you are going to believe me if I post my results anyway.


I don't know if you mentioned it earlier but you'd need to stick the weights on the frame for the other runs for accuracy. Also you'd have to do a lot of runs, and use a power meter for best results.

I guess a lot would depend on the course too. Weight definitely matters but the latest science (that I've heard) seems to conclude that rotating weight doesn't matter any more than stagnant weight.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know if you mentioned it earlier but you'd need to stick the weights on the frame for the other runs for accuracy. Also you'd have to do a lot of runs, and use a power meter for best results.
> 
> I guess a lot would depend on the course too. Weight definitely matters but the latest science (that I've heard) seems to conclude that rotating weight doesn't matter any more than stagnant weight.


I did not add weight to the frame since I was just checking the effect for new tires. Since the weight had no noticable effect on the tires vs no added weight what so ever I doubt there would be a measurable difference. The loop also had short rolling hills so no sustained climbs more than a few mins. Also very little braking for anything really. Since I was more inexperienced lap times could vary by up to 5mins anyway (30 to 35mins at a moderate pace). The unweighted ride vs the weighted ride were both well within my usual 5mins variance and I took the same lines at the same heart rate since I did have a Polar HR watch/chest strap. I'm sure I'd be more precise now if I tried again.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

goodmojo said:


> I didnt start mtb that long ago (2012 timeframe). Back then 2.3 tires were big and even regular riders tried to go with lightweight tires. For me 600-700 gram were what I rode. You could go lighter, but all the limestone in central texas slice sidewalls very easily. Ive never worn out a tire.
> 
> I ride 2.3 nobby nic/2.3 ikon. We dont have massive downhills, so you dont pick up that much speed. There arent a lot of high speed carving turns. Trails are more technical than fast. Descents might be .5 miles, 300 feet elevation at the most. Im thinking maybe the big knob tires dont really matter for central texas? (Though I know a lot of people ride DHF/aggressor).
> 
> ...


A huge amount of dross and conjecture so I thought I'd go back to your original post. So first some context, this is the Weight Weenie forum, therefore nothing heavier is ever worth the weight, lol.

Secondly, are you racing or riding for fun? If you're racing in Central Texas, no, 2.6s are not worth the weight. The only XCM or XCO course I could think of that it would be worth it for is the El Paso Puzzler in the treacherous Franklin Mountain State Park on the far Western Texas border.

If you're riding for fun, then yes the extra weight is worth it, for durability and comfort. My bike in race mode is 22 pounds and change. My Tallboy converts back into trail bike mode and is 27-28 pounds when I'm not racing. The extra weight is more durable, comfortable components.

A Nobby Nic 2.6 is a great tire for going out there to explore trails for the first time. I've pulled up in Sedona, Sante Fe, or across the state and been able to comfortably point downhill first ride everywhere. I wouldn't do that with an XC race bike.


----------



## GT87 (Mar 18, 2014)

chomxxo said:


> A huge amount of dross and conjecture so I thought I'd go back to your original post. So first some context, this is the Weight Weenie forum, therefore nothing heavier is ever worth the weight, lol.
> 
> Secondly, are you racing or riding for fun? If you're racing in Central Texas, no, 2.6s are not worth the weight. The only XCM or XCO course I could think of that it would be worth it for is the El Paso Puzzler in the treacherous Franklin Mountain State Park on the far Western Texas border.
> 
> ...


Complains about dross and conjecture... offers more dross and conjecture.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## GlazedHam (Jan 14, 2004)

I live in central Texas and race XC, Enduro and sometimes other events. I have tried 2.6 on both the XC and Enduro bikes and find it unnecessary ...assuming you have a suspension fork. Even on the Enduro where weight is not as much of a concern, I find a 2.6 provides little to no advantage over a proper 2.3-2.5. 

If your goal is to soften the front-end, maybe reduce tire pressure on your current tire or ease up on the LSC on your fork. If your goal is better front-end traction, look at riding position (you, stem length, bar height, etc), tire pressure, and fork setup.


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

GlazedHam said:


> I live in central Texas and race XC, Enduro and sometimes other events. I have tried 2.6 on both the XC and Enduro bikes and find it unnecessary ...assuming you have a suspension fork. Even on the Enduro where weight is not as much of a concern, I find a 2.6 provides little to no advantage over a proper 2.3-2.5.
> 
> If your goal is to soften the front-end, maybe reduce tire pressure on your current tire or ease up on the LSC on your fork. If your goal is better front-end traction, look at riding position (you, stem length, bar height, etc), tire pressure, and fork setup.


Good feedback thank you, was debating between 2.4s and 2.6 tires for a hardtail.


----------



## Headoc (Mar 24, 2015)

Ran across this thread looking for light wheel sets. Have a stumpy Evo that I’ve been trying to set up at a lighter weight but maintain some aggressive bent. I live it the SE so need the bike to go from flowy XC w minimal sustained downs, to super tech, sustained DH. I’ve settled on an interesting but pretty decent combo of light weight but decent traction w a 2.5 DHF max terra EXO+ (1035g) up front and a dual casing 2.35 Forkaster EXO (735g) out back. So far been really happy.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

I use a Nobby Nic 2.6 front and Bontrager XR3 2.4 rear, an odd coupling but works out well. I use my trail wheelset on long ride adventures for trails I may have never ridden before, and it helps to have a big front foot.


----------

