Part recommendations

[[email protected]]

Hi All,

I am about to dig my MTB out from under the snow, and will be making a
few "improvements" for the coming spring.

I am going to mount some bar-ends for more hand positions. To do so I
need wider bars to make up for lost width from the bar-ends' clamps. My
current bars (Titec Hell-Bent XC) are 67cm. I also want wider bars in
general for comfort. I have big hands. Any suggestions on bar-ends that
work well for big hands?

Anyone know of extra wide and/or thick grips? My hands are wider than
the grips and the diameter could be larger for more hand comfort.
Suggestions?

I would like my forearms to be parallell when I am holding the bars.
For a comfortable upper arm angle, etc it seems I need >=70cm wide
bars. The setup of the bike calls for riser bars 25-35mm or so. My
wrists would like as shallow a rake angle as possible. Suggestions?

I also need a longer seat-post. Something in the 410mm range. No
carbon. Suggestions?

Also a 180mm crankset. My local sources have an older Octalink XT with
BB in 180mm, or a RaceFace Deus X-drive with integrated BB for twice
as much. I weigh 100kg (225lbs) and ride pretty hard. Will I be sorry
if I get the XT?

I don't live near anywhere with a wide selection of components, so it
is not practical for me to just go feel lots of different bar-ends.

Also tires. I was thinking 2.1" in the front and 2.1 or 2.2 in the
back. Something that rolls well on hard-pack and rock (not small rocks,
rather big slabs) but is still ok in mud and slop. I was thinking of
something with a not very agressive patterns like:

http://www.wtb.com/products/tires_NanoRaptor.html

Other suggestions?

Thanks!

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Hi All,

> I am about to dig my MTB out from under the snow, and will be making a
> few "improvements" for the coming spring.

{Snip stuff not addressed}

> Anyone know of extra wide and/or thick grips? My hands are wider than
> the grips and the diameter could be larger for more hand comfort.
> Suggestions?

OURY. (Since you want to run bar-ends, you'll need to cut off the "cap"
ends.)

> I also need a longer seat-post. Something in the 410mm range. No
> carbon. Suggestions?

Thomson Elite. Comes in 410.

> Also tires. I was thinking 2.1" in the front and 2.1 or 2.2 in the
> back. Something that rolls well on hard-pack and rock (not small
> rocks, rather big slabs) but is still ok in mud and slop. I was
> thinking of something with a not very agressive patterns like:
>
> http://www.wtb.com/products/tires_NanoRaptor.html
>
> Other suggestions?

Geax Sedonas, Mythos XC (IRC?), Panaracer Fire XC Pros, etc. Lots of good
choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by the way,
if running different sizes. Most common is same size/paired.)

Bill "relying on memory since I hardly ever touch dirt any more" S.

 

[[email protected]]

<snip>
> choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by the way,
> if running different sizes. Most common is same size/paired.)

Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
front-back anyway, but curious.

Joseph

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> <snip>
>> choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by
>> the way, if running different sizes. Most common is same
>> size/paired.)
>
> Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
> greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
> front-back anyway, but curious.

Depends on terrain, I guess. Idea is to have a nice fat cushy tire in
front, and a "sharper, harder" tire in back to dig in to dirt (or cut
through mud to firmness below, but of course that's destructive and should
be avoided AMAP). Harder (more air pressure) also helps avoid pinch flats.

I still run 2.1s or 2.2s, and most people I know are on big fat 2.4s or
more. (I'm tubeless, so less choices I think.)

Bill "XC" S.

 

[RonSonic]

On 22 Mar 2006 10:49:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

><snip>
>> choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by the way,
>> if running different sizes. Most common is same size/paired.)
>
>Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
>greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
>front-back anyway, but curious.


One tire will always skid or slip before the other. You want that tire to be the
one in back instead of the one in front, unless you like flirting with nurses.
With the larger tire in front you can run lower pressure, get more grip and have
a cushier and faster ride. The narrow tire in the back does a better job of
cutting through loose to get more straight line traction.

A front / rear set usually has two tires of the same size but with different
tread patterns for all the same reasons.

Ron

 

[Donald Gillies]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> writes:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
>> greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
>> front-back anyway, but curious.

>Depends on terrain, I guess. Idea is to have a nice fat cushy tire in
>front, and a "sharper, harder" tire in back to dig in to dirt (or cut
>through mud to firmness below, but of course that's destructive and should
>be avoided AMAP). Harder (more air pressure) also helps avoid pinch flats.

It seems like this might be one area where Road Bike lore and Mountain
Bike lore diverge. I have a hard time imagining a pinch flat on a 2
inch mountain bike tire, if properly inflated.

Continental Attack/Force racing tire sets use a smaller tire up front.
I always run matched pairs but if they weren't matched, i'd put the
fat tires in the rear because 100% of my pinch flats have been on the
rear tire.

I don't do this any more but it's pretty darned easy to use a
mini-wheelie to yank a road bike front tire up a curb, but I'm never
able to complete the move with the rear tire without a slight risk of
pinch-flat.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[G.T.]

Donald Gillies wrote:
> "Sorni" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
>>>greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
>>>front-back anyway, but curious.
>
>
>>Depends on terrain, I guess. Idea is to have a nice fat cushy tire in
>>front, and a "sharper, harder" tire in back to dig in to dirt (or cut
>>through mud to firmness below, but of course that's destructive and should
>>be avoided AMAP). Harder (more air pressure) also helps avoid pinch flats.
>
>
> It seems like this might be one area where Road Bike lore and Mountain
> Bike lore diverge. I have a hard time imagining a pinch flat on a 2
> inch mountain bike tire, if properly inflated.

What's properly inflated? 22 psi? 34 psi? 42 psi? 57 psi? Now
what's comfortable? What won't pinch flat. You don't ride much
off-road, do you? Otherwise you would know that there is no "properly
inflated" when you're riding off-road.

Trust us. Put as fat as tire that will fit on the front, and put just
about anything that doesn't pinch flat in the rear and you will be fine.

I run a 2.4 WTB Motoraptor up front, and anything between a 2.1
Velociraptor to a 2.4 Motoraptor in the rear. I would never waste a
larger tire on the rear. I can always pump up the rear to prevent pinch
flats and it doesn't affect performance a tenth as much as pumping up
the front. Front tire traction is way more important than rear tire
traction on a mtn bike.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[Peter Cole]

Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by
>>> the way, if running different sizes. Most common is same
>>> size/paired.)
>> Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
>> greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
>> front-back anyway, but curious.
>
> Depends on terrain, I guess. Idea is to have a nice fat cushy tire in
> front, and a "sharper, harder" tire in back to dig in to dirt (or cut
> through mud to firmness below, but of course that's destructive and should
> be avoided AMAP). Harder (more air pressure) also helps avoid pinch flats.
>
> I still run 2.1s or 2.2s, and most people I know are on big fat 2.4s or
> more. (I'm tubeless, so less choices I think.)
>
> Bill "XC" S.
>
>

I agree that it depends on terrain. I ride big fat tires front & back
(as big as I can get into my frame). I find that lowering the back tire
pressure helps traction on the rocky trails I ride around here -- seems
to keep more tire in contact -- but I'm on a hardtail, fullies might be
different. For the front, the time I really need traction is when
braking & turning on a DH, I haven't found tire size to be that big a
deal, tread profile is critical ("round" sucks). I mostly lower front
pressure for comfort, but too much makes them vague in turns. For loose
conditions (sand, snow), big tires and low pressure works. I haven't
found an advantage to using different sized tires, but my preference
would be big in back.