MTB tires too big?

Hi guys and gals,

I was running a 1.95 rear and 2.1 front on my MTB hardtail over the winter, it's performed pretty
well, especially after bumping up the front to the 2.1.

In fact - I liked the confidence that the bigger front gave me so much, that I decided to up both my
tires to 2.3s for the summer - since there is less mud to contend with, just (hopefully) some nice
hardpack with the usual roots and rocks.... Now - Fitted them all up, took the opportunity to stick
some new cloth rim tape on, and a couple of DH tubes, even though my 2.125 (max) tubes would have
done for 2.3s I reckon, I'd rather be 100% sure I've got it right.

So 10 minutes to switch all that around, and all's well, bikes looking good with the 2 Tioga Factory
2.3 on, but one thing I did notice was that on the front - there is very little clearance (<1cm)
between the Avid brake noodle and the top of the tire, and at the back, its a pretty tight fit
between the stays too - probably less than 5mm clearance there, and again the <1cm clearance below
the rear noodle...

So am I either

a. A damn fool whose going to break something either on the bike or on my person when the tire rubs
or catches on something crucial.

or

b. Someone who worries too much, and if the tire fits, then it'll still fit at 30 mph down a
rocky track...

Cheers,

CandT

 

CandT at [email protected] wrote on 3/13/03 3:25 AM: <snipped>
> So 10 minutes to switch all that around, and all's well, bikes looking good with the 2 Tioga
> Factory 2.3 on, but one thing I did notice was that on the front - there is very little clearance
> (<1cm) between the Avid brake noodle and the top of the tire, and at the back, its a pretty tight
> fit between the stays too - probably less than 5mm clearance there, and again the <1cm clearance
> below the rear noodle...
>
> So am I either
>
> a. A damn fool whose going to break something either on the bike or on my person when the tire
> rubs or catches on something crucial.
>
> or
>
> b. Someone who worries too much, and if the tire fits, then it'll still fit at 30 mph down a rocky
> track...

Pretty tight. Remember that not everyone's tires measure out as stated, so the jump from "2.1" to
"2.3" may have been greater than the mathematical difference.

If you go through any mud at all, you're likely to pack up the frame. I'd personally go for more
clearance with smaller tires.

hope that helps,

-- Jim

 

"CandT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi guys and gals,
>
> I was running a 1.95 rear and 2.1 front on my MTB hardtail over the
winter, it's
> performed pretty well, especially after bumping up the front to the 2.1.
>
> In fact - I liked the confidence that the bigger front gave me so much,
that I
> decided to up both my tires to 2.3s for the summer - since there is less
mud to
> contend with, just (hopefully) some nice hardpack with the usual roots
and
> rocks.... Now - Fitted them all up, took the opportunity to stick some new
cloth
> rim tape on, and a couple of DH tubes, even though my 2.125 (max) tubes
would
> have done for 2.3s I reckon, I'd rather be 100% sure I've got it right.
>

If you've rode through the winter, and are planning on riding "some nice hardpack with the usual
roots and rocks", IMHO, you should slap those
1.95/2.1's back on. If you feel that your current 1.95/2.1's aren't up to par, talk to the other
riders in your area and see what they use.

HTH, Alvin Liau

 

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:13:12 -0500, "Alvin Liau" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"CandT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Hi guys and gals,
>>
>> I was running a 1.95 rear and 2.1 front on my MTB hardtail over the
>winter, it's
>> performed pretty well, especially after bumping up the front to the 2.1.
>>
>> In fact - I liked the confidence that the bigger front gave me so much,
>that I
>> decided to up both my tires to 2.3s for the summer - since there is less
>mud to
>> contend with, just (hopefully) some nice hardpack with the usual roots
>and
>> rocks.... Now - Fitted them all up, took the opportunity to stick some new
>cloth
>> rim tape on, and a couple of DH tubes, even though my 2.125 (max) tubes
>would
>> have done for 2.3s I reckon, I'd rather be 100% sure I've got it right.
>>
>
>If you've rode through the winter, and are planning on riding "some nice hardpack with the usual
>roots and rocks", IMHO, you should slap those
>1.95/2.1's back on. If you feel that your current 1.95/2.1's aren't up to par, talk to the other
> riders in your area and see what they use.
>
>HTH, Alvin Liau
>

Thanks for that guys. Just liked the idea of wider tires, I think it'll make me a bit more confident
at attacking the trails... I suppose the old adage holds - get out there and try it!! Just wanted to
check if I'm doing anything life threatening first.

Hoping to upgrade to a Haro Extreme X3 later in the year - so the tires wouldnt go to waste, even if
I have to take them off !

CandT

 

CandT wrote:

> Hi guys and gals,
>
> I was running a 1.95 rear and 2.1 front on my MTB hardtail over the winter, it's performed pretty
> well, especially after bumping up the front to the 2.1.
>
> In fact - I liked the confidence that the bigger front gave me so much, that I decided to up both
> my tires to 2.3s for the summer - since there is less mud to contend with, just (hopefully) some
> nice hardpack with the usual roots and rocks.... Now - Fitted them all up, took the opportunity to
> stick some new cloth rim tape on, and a couple of DH tubes, even though my 2.125 (max) tubes would
> have done for 2.3s I reckon, I'd rather be 100% sure I've got it right.
>
> So 10 minutes to switch all that around, and all's well, bikes looking good with the 2 Tioga
> Factory 2.3 on, but one thing I did notice was that on the front - there is very little clearance
> (<1cm) between the Avid brake noodle and the top of the tire, and at the back, its a pretty tight
> fit between the stays too - probably less than 5mm clearance there, and again the <1cm clearance
> below the rear noodle...
>
> So am I either
>
> a. A damn fool whose going to break something either on the bike or on my person when the tire
> rubs or catches on something crucial.
>
> or
>
> b. Someone who worries too much, and if the tire fits, then it'll still fit at 30 mph down a rocky
> track...

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The only problem I can see is either packing up with mud, where
it's obvious you just need skinnier tires, or a pebble getting caught in the tread. Even then, stuff
gets caught in the middle of the tread in the weight bearing zone, not on the edges where it can
foul the stays. Any good tread design won't allow this anyway. I had just one set of tires that
picked up pebbles, and I promptly got rid of them.

Big tires can be a good thing, as long as as the clearance isn't a problem. I'm glad to see them
making a comeback.

Matt O.

 

CandT <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just liked the idea of wider tires, I think it'll make me a bit more confident at attacking the
> trails... I suppose the old adage holds - get out there and try it!! Just wanted to check if I'm
> doing anything life threatening first.

I think if you liked the size upgrade from 1.9->2.1 in front, you'll _love_ fatter tires on both.
Around 1990 I used to run a 2.6 Fisher BearTrax on the front and a 2.5 Ground Control Extreme on the
rear. They had very little clearance, and I could sometimes hear the rear rub after I bent the rim.
Also, when the front tread would pick up a rock, it would "ping" off the underside of the fork
unicrown on its way out.

Neither of these symptoms gave me any serious problems, though I admit that I had to pay closer
attention to my rear wheel's state of true than I otherwise would have. Just because the tire could
clear with say 1.5mm to spare did not mean it wouldn't rub when I got to flexing everything. When
everything centered up right I had 3-4mm clearance each side and no rubbing.

I never voluntarily rode through mud, no matter the tires, due to the effect on my bike and the
trail when I did so. So I have no pertinent experience in that regard.

Chalo Colina

 

Bluto wrote:

> CandT <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just liked the idea of wider tires, I think it'll make me a bit more confident at attacking the
>> trails... I suppose the old adage holds - get out there and try it!! Just wanted to check if I'm
>> doing anything life threatening first.
>
> I think if you liked the size upgrade from 1.9->2.1 in front, you'll _love_ fatter tires on both.
> Around 1990 I used to run a 2.6 Fisher BearTrax on the front and a 2.5 Ground Control Extreme on
> the rear.

Even better were the 2.5" regular Ground Controls they made for awhile, before the Ground Control
Extremes. They hooked up better in loose soil, and were faster rolling. I had some for awhile. They
were particularly good on really rocky trails, or when it was really sandy/dusty.

I was also one of the last no-suspension holdouts. I found that fat tires did just as well as the
short travel forks of the time. Unfortunately, I lent my fat Ground Controls to someone, and never
got them back!

Most of the time I ride skinnier than average tires, but fat ones definately have their uses. The
trouble is that most of them are too slow and heavy, because of big, squishy knobs, and thick,
cheapo casings. But well-made ones shouldn't be any slower than normal ones, and they're definately
an advantage in certain conditions -- like rooty. It's great to see them coming back. Now, if we
could only get them to make fast, XC-oriented ones, instead of moto-wannabe downhill models.

Matt O.