# Do you prefer skinny tires or fat tires?



## RBowles (Jun 1, 2010)

I ran a set of fat Kenda tires for a while but switched out to the skinniest ignitors I could find (2.1's I think). I found out that with the skinny tires, my bike seems to roll somewhat faster. I think I may stick with with skinny tires from here on out. 

What size tires do you use, and why did you chose them?


----------



## manabiker (Jul 18, 2010)

Schwable Rocket Rons, 445 grams for a 2.25 x 26 tire that rolls fast, grabs good, add a lite tube, great set up.


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2007)

I think, it is not size that matters, it is rather the knob pattern.
I have Kenda Nevegal 2.1 on my mountain bike and cheap Specialized (not sure what exactly) 2.0 on the commuter/all rounder. Actually, Spec 2.0 are wider, than Kenda, but much faster. Kendas provide very good traction on loose stuff though. 
Kenda came stock on my bike. When they are worn out, I will probably look for something of same width (may be even fatter for the front, like 2.3-2.4), but with lower and more closely spaced knobs.


----------



## gabe23 (Aug 28, 2010)

Continental Race King 29er 2.2" tubeless. Very fast rolling tire with enough grip for my needs, since I don't usually ride in wet/muddy conditions. Running them tubeless, the tire seems to stretch over time, so they're probably a little wider than 2.2", though I haven't measured.


----------



## p0is0n0ak (May 17, 2007)

I like the Weirwolf TCS 2.3 front and back, running tubeless. They have great hook-up in most conditions going either up or down. I think that the main reason wider tires may feel slower is the weight of the tire. Since wider tires have more material, they should, on average, be heavier. Heavier tire= more rolling resistance=slower feel. However, I find the slight weight penalty to be a small price to pay for the increased stability.


----------



## JD1 (Feb 1, 2011)

The reason the wider tire is slower (on pavement) is because of friction (rolling resistance/large contact patch). The skinnier tire is faster (on pavement) because the friction is reduced (small contact patch). This is physics.

You can, of course, change these variables by changing the surface of the ground (pavement, large gravel, sand, mud), the surface of the tire (slicks, internediates, knobbies), and the inflation of the tire (low and soft, high and hard).

But OVERALL, the width of the tire, given entirely equal circumstances, has everything to do with the rolling resistance. Front tires of drag cars are skinny, front tire of road racers are wide. Drag racers want speed and no friction on the front. Road racers want contact patch for turning fast in corners.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I love physics. One can make an equally valid argument that fat tires generate lower rolling resistance. It's not about friction, it's about the hysteresis of the material - fatter tires deform less, in order to achieve the same contact patch, so less energy is lost.

My current setup is a 2.2" up front and a 2.1" in the back. More due to pricing and availability of parts than anything else, but I also favor tires with a high thread count casing when I'm spending my own money; those are usually not available in larger sizes. In the past, I've used as small as a 1.5" rear tire - they're good in mud, and it was a good compromise tire for a bike I used to commute on pavement as well as to ride off-road.

OP, I don't know if you got the 120 tpi version or the 60 tpi version, but another thing to bear in mind with the Ignitor is it has a pretty low knob. I think that makes more of a difference than anything else when the tires in question are relatively close in size and you're running a relatively close pressure in each.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

Call me the oddball here, but I have no interest in running a tire smaller than 2.3. My current setups include 2.3 ignitors on my singlespeed, 2.4 fat alberts on my trail bike, and 2.4 holy rollers on my jump bike. I am happy to give up a small amount of rolling resistance for the traction and tire compliance that a wider casing gives. You quickly forget about rolling resistance when your tires aren't hooking up in turns. Then again, I'm nearly the opposite of a weight weenie too. I always advocate a larger volume tire, the ride benefits outweigh the small price you usually pay in rolling resistance.


----------



## William_Cannon (May 5, 2009)

I run a 2.35 for stability in the front and a 2.1 in the rear, but it really depends what your needs are. The 2.35 is definitely slower, but I'm not racing anyone and I really like the "added grip" on technical riding.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

WTB LTs, Ardent 2.4, Schwalbe Racing Ralphs, you get the picture. Big and baloony as I my frame will allow.


----------



## S_Trek (May 3, 2010)

I went the other way. I even found some to be lighter than the smaller tires.


----------



## Carraig042 (Nov 12, 2009)

2.1 Fire XC Pro's here. They have really good grip in most cases for their size.

-Brett


----------



## onlycrimson (Nov 11, 2008)

I run 2.1's, but I may go bigger this season.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

JD1 said:


> The reason the wider tire is slower (on pavement) is because of friction (rolling resistance/large contact patch). The skinnier tire is faster (on pavement) because the friction is reduced (small contact patch). This is physics.


No it's not physics. The size of the contact patch has nothing to do with the width of the tire, it is solely inflation pressure that determines it. Furthermore, contact patch size doesn't determine rolling resistance, the internal lossiness of the carcass is also important.


----------



## Grip (May 22, 2009)

Carraig042 said:


> 2.1 Fire XC Pro's here. They have really good grip in most cases for their size.
> 
> -Brett


Same tires.


----------



## onlycrimson (Nov 11, 2008)

craigsj said:


> No it's not physics. The size of the contact patch has nothing to do with the width of the tire, it is solely inflation pressure that determines it. Furthermore, contact patch size doesn't determine rolling resistance, the internal lossiness of the carcass is also important.


For any given tire, its contact patch is determined by its pressure (and profile, among other things). A 3" wide tire at 50psi will have more contact patch than a 1" tire at the same pressure. Right? This seems to be sound logic.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

xenon said:


> I think, it is not size that matters, it is rather the knob pattern.


Yep that's been my experience too.
even thin 1.9 or 1.95 kendas nevegals don't roll nearly as well as the 2.2 spec captains I run now.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

onlycrimson said:


> For any given tire, its contact patch is determined by its pressure (and profile, among other things). A 3" wide tire at 50psi will have more contact patch than a 1" tire at the same pressure. Right? This seems to be sound logic.


No.

PSI stand for Pounds per Square Inch. As long as you're looking at tires with a reasonable pressure - as in, enough that the rim's not resting on the ground, and low enough that there's some deformation, the width of the tire doesn't effect the area of the contact patch. The tire deforms until the system is at equilibrium, which is a function of the amount of area on the ground.

The shape of the contact patch will be different, though.

I think it's missing the point of fatter tires not to run them a little softer. In that case, the contact patch is bigger. Relative to its size, the larger tire deforms less for the same contact patch, which is a big part of reducing rolling resistance. Schwalbe sponsored a study on it a while ago. Unfortunately, the way they publish their results is pretty crappy and tracking down the original would require knowledge of German and access to German academic newsletters, but it's still interesting.

There are some other things going for narrow tires. They're lighter, and push less air. (Obviously the weight thing only applies to comparable tires. A racy low knob 2.3" might be lighter than a cheap 1.8" mud tire.) Whether or not either of those things is important is going to depend on the rider and his individual circumstances. I doubt that most DH racers and AM kids really care about weight or air resistance, but they could be pretty important to someone who does a lot of XC racing in the mountains mainly on fire roads.


----------



## Jeff in Bend (Jun 5, 2010)

Here is a good read from Schwalbe about rolling resistance. I think this is mainly talking about onroad but good info.
http://smtp.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance

Here is an indepth read on off road rolling resistance.
http://www.bernhansen.com/Tester/Dekktrykk, bredde og knastens innvirkning - schwalbe.pdf


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

craigsj said:


> No it's not physics. The size of the contact patch has nothing to do with the width of the tire, it is solely inflation pressure that determines it. Furthermore, contact patch size doesn't determine rolling resistance, the internal lossiness of the carcass is also important.


I am under the impression that a larger tire means you can run lower pressure with more volume, thus more grip. if i ran a 1.95 at 22psi, i would pinch flat pretty soon, but I can get away with the same pressure on a 2.35 tire, thus increasing my contact patch and grip.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

RBowles said:


> I ran a set of fat Kenda tires for a while but switched out to the skinniest ignitors I could find (2.1's I think). I found out that with the skinny tires, my bike seems to roll somewhat faster. I think I may stick with with skinny tires from here on out.
> 
> What size tires do you use, and why did you chose them?


It's not the size of the tire it's the weight and knob design. If you were coming from Kenda (say) Nevegal, it's a full volume tall knobs grippy tire to smaller, med spiky knob tire like ignitor you can feel the weight difference.

You would feel just as fast going from 2.35 Nev to 2.35 small block 8, faster if you go 2.4 Schwalbe Nobby Nic without giving up any grip. Or even faster 2.4 rocket ron. Lighter tires make the bike feel more responsive, and fast but you'd give up durability and grip.

I like full vol tires the bigger the better as long as I can keep the weight reasonable. Sure they may feel like a drag sometime on the climb but they do put a big smile on my face on the descend.:thumbsup:


----------



## JD1 (Feb 1, 2011)

craigsj said:


> No it's not physics. The size of the contact patch has nothing to do with the width of the tire, it is solely inflation pressure that determines it. Furthermore, contact patch size doesn't determine rolling resistance, the internal lossiness of the carcass is also important.


Respectfully, I disagree with your refutation of my earlier post. I used the phrase "given entirely equal circumstances" to cover the idea that inflation pressure was a governing factor. I wished to focus entirely on the poster's question of tire width while equalizing the minutia.

For example, if I have a monster truck tire that is inflated to 50 psi and a 23mm bicycle tire inflated to 50 psi, their contact patch will be governed solely by the width of the tire itself, not the inflation pressure. Vary the pressures as much as the tires will allow by carcass construction and you'll not come close to matching the contact patch (amount of tire material touching the ground) of the other. Therefore, all other variables being equal (cross section, profile, inflation, tread design, tread pattern, manufacturer, tire construction, tire compound material, etc), the width of the tire itself is entirely responsible for the basic rolling resistance from the users viewpoint.

If the original poster would be kind enough, for the purposes of this discussion, to purchase the Schwalbe Sammy Slick in 26 x 2.1 and 700c x 35mm and then do a "seat of the pants" comparison, I'd be happy to hear the outcome. Afterward, he could send me the slightly used tires for free and I'd be happy to take them on a longer, one year test and report back in 2012 (if we're all still here). 

Now, I agree with your notion that there are factors other than contact patch and coefficient of friction when determining, for math's sake, the ultimate rolling resistance of a tire material, but for this elementary discussion comparing the difference between skinny and wide tires, the point's moot.

And, in all seriousness, what's "lossiness?" Is this a typographical error or a tire term I've not heard of. Both are entirely possible so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## manabiker (Jul 18, 2010)

Great Information, saved it...


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

JD1 said:


> For example, if I have a monster truck tire that is inflated to 50 psi and a 23mm bicycle tire inflated to 50 psi, their contact patch will be governed solely by the width of the tire itself, not the inflation pressure. Vary the pressures as much as the tires will allow by carcass construction and you'll not come close to matching the contact patch (amount of tire material touching the ground) of the other. Therefore, all other variables being equal (cross section, profile, inflation, tread design, tread pattern, manufacturer, tire construction, tire compound material, etc), the width of the tire itself is entirely responsible for the basic rolling resistance from the users viewpoint.


The bike I put 23mm tires on weighs somewhere in the mid- to upper-20s as it's usually equipped.

A monster truck tire without a monster truck on it already weighs more than that. So yeah, inflate it to 50 psi and it'll have a bigger contact patch.

Maybe I should have said that the size of the contact patch is determined by the tire pressure and the total force the ground is exerting on the tire. The total weight of the bike and rider is supported by the two contact patches, front and rear. The amount of force those exert is just the pressure multiplied by the area of the contact patch. Certainly there are some situations that mess that up - I mention them in my previous post - but as long as we restrict the discussion to tires in the range of sizes on a bicycle, even including something like the Big Dummy or the Mukluk, with pressures in a range in which there's some detectable deformation of the tire but the rim's not on the ground, and with a low knob or slick tread and on a firm surface, it's going to be true. Since we're talking about choosing a tire for a mountain bike, I'm pretty comfortable with those restrictions.

If a larger tire at the same pressure and supporting the same weight had a bigger contact patch, it would exert more force than the weight it was supporting, and magically float up. In a sense, that's exactly what happens - it floats up until it's in equilibrium, and the contact patch has the same area as the smaller tire that was in equilibrium in the first place. Behavior would be a bit wonky with something inflated to such high pressure that it didn't deform, and quite different if the pressure was low enough for the rim to land on the ground, but again, we're talking about tires on mountain bikes.

EDIT: FWIW, I think I knew exactly what "lossiness" meant, and I had to bring out a 50c word like hysteresis earlier.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

JD1 said:


> Respectfully, I disagree with your refutation of my earlier post. I used the phrase "given entirely equal circumstances" to cover the idea that inflation pressure was a governing factor. I wished to focus entirely on the poster's question of tire width while equalizing the minutia.


I responded to your first paragraph and you reply by quoting from your third. You are still wrong. Given entirely equal circumstances, a wider tire will not have a larger contact patch and it's relative rolling resistance is unknown.



JD1 said:


> Now, I agree with your notion that there are factors other than contact patch and coefficient of friction when determining, for math's sake, the ultimate rolling resistance of a tire material, but for this elementary discussion comparing the difference between skinny and wide tires, the point's moot.


This is not my "notion". You are free to agree or disagree with facts but that's the part here that's moot. You have asserted that tire width determines rolling resistance because it controls contact patch size. That is false. Factors that determine rolling resistance don't just determine "ultimate" rolling resistance, they determine all of it. Your "factors" aren't factors at all, even in the elementary sense.



JD1 said:


> And, in all seriousness, what's "lossiness?" Is this a typographical error or a tire term I've not heard of. Both are entirely possible so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.


Seriously? I had thought lossiness would be easier to understand than "hysteresis". I hadn't expected anyone to struggle with the nouning of that adjective.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> EDIT: FWIW, I think I knew exactly what "lossiness" meant, and I had to bring out a 50c word like hysteresis earlier.


I avoided hysteresis and similar terms because this is a beginner's forum and the meaning is not obvious with a quick lookup. I figure if someone can't figure out "lossy" from "lossiness" they won't ever understand hysteresis. Never occurred to me that would throw anyone for a loop.


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

I typically run 2.0 - 2.1 width tires on my full suspension XC bike. 

I find they provide a good balance between weight an performance / compliance. If I had less suspension, I would opt for a bigger tire to smooth out the ride a bit. If I rode rougher trails all the time, I would go for a bigger tire. If I rode super smooth trails all the time, I still would likely go with a tire in the 1.95-2.0 range.

Rolling resistance and traction depend heavily on tread design and rubber compound, not just the width of the tire.


----------



## sanitaire (Jan 30, 2008)

I'm a shrek sized biker so I like a bigger contact patch....my surly pugsley has 4.0 and older ibis alibi has 2.5 tires.....


----------



## Jeff in Bend (Jun 5, 2010)

mimi1885 said:


> It's not the size of the tire it's the weight and knob design. If you were coming from Kenda (say) Nevegal, it's a full volume tall knobs grippy tire to smaller, med spiky knob tire like ignitor you can feel the weight difference.
> 
> You would feel just as fast going from 2.35 Nev to 2.35 small block 8, faster if you go 2.4 Schwalbe Nobby Nic without giving up any grip. Or even faster 2.4 rocket ron. Lighter tires make the bike feel more responsive, and fast but you'd give up durability and grip.
> 
> I like full vol tires the bigger the better as long as I can keep the weight reasonable. Sure they may feel like a drag sometime on the climb but they do put a big smile on my face on the descend.:thumbsup:


Size of the tire does matter, the wider tire will roll faster with the same tread and air pressure on or off road, 2.4 rocket ron will roll faster than a 2.1 for example. A 2.4 rocket ron at 25 psi will roll faster than the same tire at 50psi off road,and slower on road. Weight and tread design matter just as much.

Just because a tire and set up has less rolling resistance doesn't mean it will be the fastest tire; trail conditions, traction, and durability are all major considerations in tire selection. You won't go faster on furious freds than kenda nevegals if you can't hold speed in a corner, don't have traction to climb, or have to stop because of a flat. We can't run 15 psi in our tires which may roll faster off road because you'd have pinch flats, roll the bead off rim, dent rims etc.

Wind resistance becomes the biggest factor in rolling resisatance once you reach certain speeds, which I think would differ between on and off road.

Like everything in life it's all about balance, every action has a reaction. You have to decide what you want your bike to do best and what are you willing to give up to get it, from not only tires but FS to hardtail, stem length, bar width, strength, weight, cost, etc.


----------



## Jeff in Bend (Jun 5, 2010)

craigsj said:


> This is not my "notion". You are free to agree or disagree with facts but that's the part here that's moot. You have asserted that tire width determines rolling resistance because it controls contact patch size. That is false. Factors that determine rolling resistance don't just determine "ultimate" rolling resistance, they determine all of it. Your "factors" aren't factors at all, even in the elementary sense.
> QUOTE]
> 
> It's not contact patch size but shape.
> ...


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2007)

It is hard if possible at all to compare tires from different manufacturers. Today I replaced a Specialized 2.0 tire with Ritchey Z-Max 2.35. Specialized is clearly wider - go figure...........


----------



## Brodino (Sep 15, 2008)

I run 2.2 Trail Kings and although the 2.1 Maxxis tires i had on my bike before rolled faster, the increase stability at speed and cornering is worth the penalty with the TKs.


----------



## RBowles (Jun 1, 2010)

All this tire talk has got me thinking. My Rize originally came with maxis ridgelines and they were fairly fast, but I used to wipe out in medium to high speed turns quite regularly. When I switched to the wide Nevegals, this problem went away, but at the expense of added weight. The bike actually dug into the corners better and felt more stable.

When I went to the 2.1 ignitors, the bike slowed down somewhat and does nothing to inspire confidence in fast turns. Maybe I need to retract my original statement about sticking with the skinny tires.


----------



## Jeff in Bend (Jun 5, 2010)

RBowles said:


> When I went to the 2.1 ignitors, the bike slowed down somewhat and does nothing to inspire confidence in fast turns. Maybe I need to retract my original statement about sticking with the skinny tires.


You said in the original post " I found out that with the skinny tires, my bike seems to roll somewhat faster" and now you're saying with the ignitors "the bike slowed down somewhat". Can you clarify your statements?


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

I can relate to Rbowes statement. He feels faster on the climb but overall it slow his avg speed down due to lack of confidence. Smaller tires required more air make harsher ride than bigger ones.

Another thing to consider to is the shape of the tires round or flat profile. We are predominantly one or the other but a few corners into the ride the body adjusted. I prefer round especially the front.


----------



## RBowles (Jun 1, 2010)

Jeff in Bend said:


> You said in the original post " I found out that with the skinny tires, my bike seems to roll somewhat faster" and now you're saying with the ignitors "the bike slowed down somewhat". Can you clarify your statements?


Sorry, I should not have typed anything after having about three glasses of wine. Here's what I was trying to say:

*The skinny Maxxis Ridgelines were super fast for climbing, but unstable in corners. I spent a lot of time with my bike sliding out from under me in turns with loose surfaces.

*Nevegals handled the turns like a champ, but were slow. I'm a climbing guy so they didn't really do anything for me.

*The skinny Maxxis ignitors roll faster than nevegals, but slower than the ridgelines. They don't inspire confidence in corners like the wide nevegals, but are better than the ridgelines.


----------



## willrace4food (Jan 11, 2009)

When it all comes down too it MTB tires are widely available from 1.5-2.5 each made for specific circumstances. The only way to truly find out what suits your riding style and terrain is to try a tire (and take notes). 
To really throw a wrench in things the tire characteristics can change dramatically with a small change in pressure due to how the tread will conform to the surface. We're talking +/- 2 psi.
If that wasn't enough you can also get the same tire/same size in different versions(softer/harder rubber, wire bead vs kevlar folding bead) So you really need to pay attention to what you're buying when you grab it off the shelf. Also it is important to point out that not all manufacturers measure tires the same. Not to mention the same tire on a wider/narrower rim can also change the tire profile, making it (look) bigger or small and also make it handle differently.
Now for the pressure vs size(volume). A smaller volume tire requires a higher pressure to support the same amount of weight. To illustrate lets examine the infamous monster truck tire comment. The typical truck weighs about 10,000 pounds and the tires are filled to about 8-10 psi, but they still look pretty round right? Yes this is caused by the enormous volume of air that is contained within the tire. If some errant mechanic were to fill the tire to 50 PSI before sending the truck out on the track it would essentially have four timebombs underneath just waiting to blow off the rim. When you look at a 23c tire of a road bike it requires almost 100 PSI to support 200 lbs due to the smaller air volume. 10 psi in that same tire and you would be riding on the rim.
So what I'm trying to say is tire choice is ultimately a personal decision that comes down to riding style, equipment, terrain, weather, and experience. The only way to find out what works best for you is to experiment. 
Currently on my bike I have a WTB wolverine 2.3 UST in the front on a crank bros colbalt 22 PSI and a Schwalbe Racing ralph 2.25 UST in the rear at 22 PSI.
On my race wheelset I have Continental Speed kings 2.3 frt/rr on Stan's podium rims tube type run tubeless 18 PSI front and 20 PSI rear. (Going to try out the conti X kings when I get a set).
Check out the wheel and tire forum. They currently have a tire swap thread that helps take some of the cost out of trial and error.

JIM


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

i select tires based on:

- the rig i'm riding
- the conditions i'm riding
- if it's a race or not

tires i run range from 2.35 purgatory to 2.0 furious fred....and everything inbetween....


----------



## ProjectDan35 (Jul 19, 2010)

2.2 Captain control is a good sized tire for me. I won't go bigger then that. I have 2.2 on front and 2.0 on rear. But I may put 2.2 on rear for more traction.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I really like the Panaracer Dart I have on the front of my bike. The knobs are elongated in the direction of travel, and it carves really well. I have an older, 2.2" wide-knob model right now, but a teammate gave it to me because I was talking about how much I loved the previous 2.1" one, which is currently available.

I have a Velociraptor on the back right now. It's maybe not brilliant for efficiency on a climb in good conditions, but I love the way it corners, and I think it's because it has prominent, elongated shoulder knobs. It's also good in mud, although not as good as I remember my smaller-bodied, larger-knobbed Continental Cross-country being. That tire was pretty sketchy on loose surfaces and quite harsh, so c'est la vie - everything has a cost.

Next, I'm trying some Crossmarks. They have a lower knob, with a center ridge, but there's still prominent knobs on the shoulders. So I'm hoping that these will be lighter and more efficient on the way up, while giving me the cornering I know and love on my current tires on the way down. I'm also curious about the WTB Prowler MX, but I bumped into a kickass deal on Crossmarks first. 

While I think width has something to do with it, OP, it sounds to me like your experience has at least as much to do with the tread pattern. Big knobs on the Nevs vs. small knobs on the Ignitors is going to make a significant difference.


----------



## boomersooner523 (Sep 28, 2010)

For XC I like my tires like i like my girls...skinny


----------



## bigbeck (Feb 15, 2004)

RBowles said:


> All this tire talk has got me thinking. My Rize originally came with maxis ridgelines and they were fairly fast, but I used to wipe out in medium to high speed turns quite regularly. When I switched to the wide Nevegals, this problem went away, but at the expense of added weight. The bike actually dug into the corners better and felt more stable.
> 
> When I went to the 2.1 ignitors, the bike slowed down somewhat and does nothing to inspire confidence in fast turns. Maybe I need to retract my original statement about sticking with the skinny tires.


 Tires are a royal PITA. There's just too many variables. I, like you, ended up with a 2.5" tire on front to keep my front end from washing out. For the rear, I'll use a very light low tread 2.1 or 2.2 tire that spins up very fast. If the rear slides around a little, I can control that.

For a wide front tire, I chose one that has fairly aggressive closely spaced side knobs. Low and wide spaced side knobs slip easier. I've had tires as small as 2.3" that worked almost as well as a 2.5" simply because it had aggressive side knobs.

As with any tire, pressure is key to tire performance. Rider weight is also a big factor. An excellent tire for a 220 lb. rider could be the worst tire ever for a 170lb rider. A nice fast rolling tire for a light rider could be a pig for a big rider because the extra rider weight makes the tread fold and squirm.

I happen to be an expert on tires. But only for myself. Same with anyone else on this board that has tried dozens of different tires. I can just look at a tire tread pattern and know whether or not it will be suitable for a front or rear tire. But, to be honest, I have been fooled on a few occasions. The only way to be 100% sure is to ride it.

Just be aware that because 50 people say brand X is the best, doesn't mean it will be the best for you. But it is the best for them. Just like a saddle, only YOUR a$$ knows what's best. LOL


----------



## RBowles (Jun 1, 2010)

Thanks BigBeck and to all the rest of you! I guess that I am not all that odd after all, for chasing the elusive tire setup that will catapult me into MTB greatness!  

I like all the reasons everyone listed for why or why not they choose the particular tire for their needs; and I will defininitely walk away from this thread more enlightened on the whole tire thing.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I went up to Schwalbe 2.25's last year for racing and although they might not feel any faster (or slower) they sure inspire more confidence. I have yet to determine if that is a good thing or not.


----------



## 2wTrekr (Oct 1, 2015)

RBowles said:


> What size tires do you use, and why did you chose them?


*WTB/Freedom Thickslick 26 x 2.1*

It's a relatively light '26x2' slick that can run up to 80 psi.

I commute on pavement, so I prefer slick tires in the '26 x 2' range, 
with the highest max psi available, combined with 
sealant-fortified inner tubes and tire liners.

Other '26x2' tires I plan to try are:

Kenda - Kommuter and Kwick Roller Sport (both can run 85psi)
Resist - Nomad (80 psi tire, also supposed to be pretty light for its type)

26x2 tires are good because they are safer than skinnier road tires. 
Commuting doesn't happen in a vacuum; 
there's mixed terrain and other road hazards. You've got to be ready for it;
you need fast-and-bombproof commuter tires.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Holy thread dredge!

Anybody who posted here still here? If you are, are you using the same width as four years ago?

I'm on nominal 2.2s at the moment, but was on nominal 2.4s this summer and my current favorite is a 2.25, though I'm thinking I'll try 2.35s when I manage to wear out what I've got. I'm also on a FS 29er now. 

I do remember the Dart I had when I posted. These days, I'm on more of a block tread. I think the braking is better on soft or loose surfaces.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Looks like Gaddafi may be in trouble in Lybia:
LIBYA: West, U.N. Turn Up Heat on Gaddafi ? Global Issues


----------



## 2wTrekr (Oct 1, 2015)

Probably not the most obscure thread I've 'exhumed'  
Timeless question though, if anyone in this day and age reads thru and could use some tire ideas


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Fat tires are boring. Plus this and plus that... yawn. We'll be mounting wheels on sofas and rolling down the trail watching tv soon. 

Try some 32mm knobbies. Dont be a wuss, its fun  The constant fear of imminent doom and pants-soiling lack of traction is absolutely thrilling. 

I like tires around 2.25, or not-huge 2.35's. 2.1 out back is good too, depending on the brand.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

2wTrekr said:


> Probably not the most obscure thread I've 'exhumed'
> Timeless question though, if anyone in this day and age reads thru and could use some tire ideas


I was just poking fun with some news from the time. 

It is a timeless topic, but it is largely dictated by terrain, then preference.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

Somebody's been sniffin' around the archives...

I run 2.35s front and back. I like it...


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

Have ran 1.8s to 2.4s, my favorite is 2.1; is that considered fat or skinny?


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Currently running 2.1 rear/2.3 front but considering bumping those up to 2.2/2.4 (or more if I decide to play in the snow more this year).


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

DiRt DeViL said:


> Have ran 1.8s to 2.4s, my favorite is 2.1; is that considered fat or skinny?


Fat has taken a new dimension...4"+.... How fat is too fat though?


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

AshevilleMtBiker said:


> Fat has taken a new dimension...4"+.... How fat is too fat though?


2.41 is too fat. 2.40 is fine.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

2.2 to 2.4 (rear/front)... don't think I'd go below 2.2.... and a true 2.4 tyre is plenty ^^

-----------------------------------------------------------
-=snifff!!=- What's that you say?


----------



## 2wTrekr (Oct 1, 2015)

One Pivot said:


> Fat tires are boring. Plus this and plus that... yawn. We'll be mounting wheels on sofas and rolling down the trail watching tv soon.
> 
> Try some 32mm knobbies. Dont be a wuss, its fun  The constant fear of imminent doom and pants-soiling lack of traction is absolutely thrilling.


I'll probably be trying some skinnier tires soon; just got a used hybrid bike with blade-style (?) rims on it...stock tires are 28mm...I am terrified that I will crash in a mangled mess and taco a front wheel, whilst crossing some railroad tracks at a near-parallel angle...I hear that's a recurring problem in some towns...cyclists keep getting eaten by the railroad tracks, due to skinny tires (and maybe angle-of-approach I'm sure)


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Go on a large scale group road ride. Maybe a Century is too ambitious, but they often have some shorter distances too. Look at how the people around you are riding.

I've been surprised by what I can still do with a bike with road tires. But my real love is MTB, and I ride like it. Someone who's riding too passively or too rigidly can't ride through a small pothole without crashing and needs a ton of pressure not to pinch flat. If you ride light and actively, you'll be surprised by the trails you can still ride with those 28s.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

In summer I ride 1.35 Kojaks on my commuting wheels, 2.2 Speedking II on my mtb wheels. Although I mix it up with 2.25 Ro Ros if the riding is wet, gnarly off road. Previous winters Ive used Nokian Hakapalitas (I think thats how its spelled) in 1.9 size. Just invested in a set of Ice Spiker Evo Pros in 2.35 though. Now I can take it off road in winter too


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

2wTrekr said:


> I hear that's a recurring problem in some towns...cyclists keep getting eaten by the railroad tracks, due to skinny tires (and maybe angle-of-approach I'm sure)


Two problems with railroad tracks.

Angle of approach is indeed an issue. Always cross the tracks perpendicular to the rails if you're going to ride across. If you cannot do that, get off and walk.

The other problem is smoothness. That steel rail is like ice to your tire. Doesn't matter how wide your tire is. Hit it at an off-angle and you're going down. Except in some ways they're worse than ice. Because with ice, at least studded tires give you grip. On steel rails, studded tires might actually be worse.

I've never ridden 1.8's on any mtb, but I have used a couple different 1.95's. For years I used 2.1's and then I moved to 2.4's (albeit somewhat skinny 2.4's). Now I'm using 4" tires on 65mm wide rims on my mtb. My commuter bike is on 700x38's.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I usually try to hop or jump the tracks on all my bikes. Not an issue if you don't touch em


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

bdundee said:


> I usually try to hop or jump the tracks on all my bikes. Not an issue if you don't touch em


Yeah, but the last thing you want to do is biff that hop and go down in traffic...or when there's a train coming and the gates haven't dropped yet.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I didn't say it was for the timid


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

bdundee said:


> I didn't say it was for the timid


living on the edge I see


----------



## 2wTrekr (Oct 1, 2015)

Ghost_HTX said:


> Just invested in a set of Ice Spiker Evo Pros in 2.35 though. Now I can take it off road in winter too


Speaking of Ice Spiker Pros, I have an unfortunate anecdote to recall...
Last winter I rode them...great tires, but had a bit of a problem on my first ride:

After I got them all mounted, I went out on my usual path, down the side 
of a 6-lane highway, with a gradual incline, @ 2-3 mile stretch...
snow was hardpacked in spots, which let the bike get moving, and/or 
with a good coast, which brings to the problem:

I suddenly realized that the air I was breathing (through my OR HelmetClava),
had a bad chemical, gaslike property to it...reminded me of working in a metal-fab shop with a bad filter mask...first I thought it was asbestos dust, 
from the big semi trucks that kept passing, but then somehow I noticed 
the cloud, that kept rising from my front wheel/fender...

See, the fender was too low, and the carbide spikes just kept grating on the metal on its underside, throwing metal dust right up at me as I rode.

After I fixed it (so the spikes would clear the front fender well), then
no more bad metal-dust-air, no more "WITNESS ME!!!" so far anyway...

Thing is, it didn't phase the carbide spikes at all, but 
the metal mount in the fender-well was all gouged into a trough...

These days I ride Continental Winter Contact tires, and they work just fine
(I still have the Ice Spiker Pros, the rubber compound is cool on those tires.
They look like studded leather, which means 
I'll probably ride them again this winter)


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

Ha ha! ^ Good that you got that fixed before the tyres buzz-sawed through the front fender mount!

I was actually a little worried about this too - you see I ride a 2012 model rigid carbon 26er that doesn't really have that much rear wheel clearance. I was super concerned that the back wheel would end up sawing through my chain / seat stays. 
Its tight, but they fit nicely! Not a lot of room for snow clearing, though...

With all those 300+ spikes each the wheels are now less like an MTB wheel, more like pointy death saws! If I slide at all this winter then I am certain it is because of rider error - I swear these things could climb up a cliff face. Made of ice. And lard. With Teflon.


----------

