# Differences between 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 tire widths



## oliveryou (Jul 31, 2008)

I am looking to upgrade my tires that came with my bike, looking at the WTB Weirwolfs. I am thinking about the 2.3's...is there much more noticeable difference between a 2.1 and a 2.5? What are the pros and cons of a thinner vs. wider tire?

I might even think about getting the 2.5s.


----------



## KingCrimson (Jun 26, 2008)

About a fifth of an inch.

Damn that's bad.

If you can fit a 2.5 GET IT. You will float better, have the ability to run lower pressure, and you get a lot more traction.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Number one, make sure the tire you want will fit your frame and fork.

Number two, make sure your rim will support a much wider tire than stock.

Number three, a wider tire doesn't mean more traction.


----------



## mondaycurse (Nov 24, 2005)

2.5 is probably too much. That's an assumption, not a complete answer. Not only will they weigh a beastly amount, but your rims or frame/fork most likely won't handle it. What type of biking do you do/how much do you weigh/ what bike do you have?


----------



## KingCrimson (Jun 26, 2008)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Number one, make sure the tire you want will fit your frame and fork.
> 
> Number two, make sure your rim will support a much wider tire than stock.
> 
> Number three, a wider tire doesn't mean more traction.


In what situation? There's more rubber in the dirt. My assumption is that the more surface area that is in contact with the ground, the more traction.

That's why we don't use roady tires in dirt, right? High pressure, tiny contact patch.

A larger tire allows you to run a lower pressure as well. Bigger contact patch.

I doubt he can put 2.5s, but they sure are fun if you can fit that much meat. I love my 2.3s

Ever ridden a Pugsley? Bigger tires ARE more fun. Why else would people enjoy 29ers so much? The Pugsley comes out to be a 29er more or less with the tires anyway.


----------



## ljsmith (Oct 26, 2007)

First of all keep in mind that all tires of a given size are not the same size. For example most 2.35 tires are actually 2.2. This is done so that the manufacturers can claim a lighter weight for a given tire size. I saw two bikes at the bike store. One had 2.35 Kenda Nevegals, the other had 2.35 Weirwolfs, the weirwolfs were way smaller than the Nevegals.

Second, don't get larger tires then your terrain needs and your fitness level can handle. Larger tires will be heavier, and weight in the wheels and tires is VERY noticeable when climbing and accelerating. I actually just switched from 2.1s to 2.3s and while the traction is incredible it takes a lot more effort to get up hills now. 

As far as pros and cons. 

For smaller tires

Pros: lightweight so they accelerate and climb better.

Cons: Have to run more pressure so they are less comfortable with less traction. More prone to pinch flats

For larger tires

Pros: Great traction and you can run lower pressures to get some suspension action. Less chance of pinch flats.

Cons: Heavy. Much harder to climb and accelerate. May not fit bike, or properly fit the rims. 

There are more pros and cons, but these are the major ones.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

KingCrimson said:


> In what situation? There's more rubber in the dirt. My assumption is that the more surface area that is in contact with the ground, the more traction.


Simplified explanation:

As a tire becomes larger, it creates a bigger footprint. That means that your weight is spread out over a greater area, exerting less pressure per square inch. At some point, that pressure becomes too little for the tread knobs to dig into the earth. Knob penetration is the key to traction on soft ground (it's different for hard surfaces). When your big knobby tire is floating on the surface, rather than digging in, you'll be losing traction.

The upside to a tire that's too big for conditions is that they tend to be very predictable. While they might seem to break away sooner than a properly sized tire, they'll usually do so more gradually, and if you like controlling your bike at the limit, that can be a lot of fun.

There are small tires that grip like hell, but break away quickly.


----------



## KingCrimson (Jun 26, 2008)

I got it.

I guess I didn't take into consideration that not everyone rides on dried up clay..

Around here, contact patch is king. The only soft stuff we have around here is beach sand, and of course, you just need a pile of contact patch to get across that.


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

If you have a low to mid level bike the stock tires are likely crap and/or a road-mountain combination type to begin with. Getting a good quality tire for the correct terrain in the same size as the stock will probably be a huge improvement. I just put VelociRaptors on my daughter's bike and it's vastly better.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

D.F.L.,

Thanks for watching my back. I couldn't have explained it better. :thumbsup:


----------



## oliveryou (Jul 31, 2008)

i have a rockhopper with a RS Dart 3 fork -- thinking about 2.3 or even a 2.5 if possible. anyone know if both will fit? yes, the rim can handle up to a 2.5


----------



## KingCrimson (Jun 26, 2008)

I don't think a D3 will take a 2.5.

What kind of conditions do you ride in?


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

And on hard surfaces, you generally want more contact with the ground and knobs that are big enough to prevent distortion and squirming, BUT you have to have rubber that's soft enough to conform to the small texture on the surface. Car/motorcycle tires work this way. Big, hard tires don't work well, but big soft ones do.

WAY oversimplified, but it should give you the idea.


----------



## KingCrimson (Jun 26, 2008)

D.F.L. said:


> And on hard surfaces, you generally want more contact with the ground and knobs that are big enough to prevent distortion and squirming, BUT you have to have rubber that's soft enough to conform to the small texture on the surface. Car/motorcycle tires work this way. Big, hard tires don't work well, but big soft ones do.
> 
> WAY oversimplified, but it should give you the idea.


I knew that much, just didn't take into account soft ground penetration.


----------



## EnglishT (Apr 9, 2008)

Read this...

You'll find alot of very useful information about rolling resistance, the article talks about the difference between different sizes and treads (albeit one brand) and the affect they have on different surfaces.
Very good reading.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

EnglishT said:


> Read this...
> 
> You'll find alot of very useful information about rolling resistance, the article talks about the difference between different sizes and treads (albeit one brand) and the affect they have on different surfaces.
> Very good reading.


Very interesting read! But I'm left wondering how well grassy meadow results would correlate to the rocky trails here in the northeast. Still, I'm convinced I should try something a little wider than my Panaracer Smoke/Dart combo.


----------



## mck.brad (Jun 28, 2008)

EnglishT said:


> Read this...
> 
> You'll find alot of very useful information about rolling resistance, the article talks about the difference between different sizes and treads (albeit one brand) and the affect they have on different surfaces.
> Very good reading.


I think I'm now going to have to play around with my tire pressure. I do a slight mix of road/off-road and punched up a rather high pressure, hoping for better rolling resistance on the road. After today's ride, and reading this article, I'm going to be dropping down quite a bit!!


----------

