what is so good about fat tires?!(poll)



what size tires u got?

  • 1.9

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1.95

    Votes: 5 5.6%
  • 2.0

    Votes: 20 22.5%
  • 2.24

    Votes: 45 50.6%
  • 2.4

    Votes: 19 21.3%

  • Total voters
    89

yash

New Member
Jul 22, 2003
29
0
0
Originally posted by umberto
what is so good about them?

i don't know how is it with 2,25s or bigger but i've ridden 1,9s and 2,1 and i can surely tell that 2,1 is a lot more comfortable and has a lot better grip i didn't notice any difference in rolling resistance it's the same story as with roadie 20 and 23s but i think that a lot depends on tire's material, shape and manufacturer. The 2,1 also seems to be less prone to snakebites I've ridden michelin's wildgrippers 1,95 comp xs 1,95 and comp Ss 2,1 the last ones are great their grip islike nothing else and through whole racing season i didn't got a flat on any race (some marathons and xcs) and i only got three while training (two nails - no tire would survive this) and one faulty tube. But after 4000km of use they ar a bit worn.
 

percious

New Member
Sep 15, 2003
66
0
0
43
wider tires will give you better traction, especially in we conditions. Skinny tires will make you fast in hard pack. I like 1.85 on the rear, 2.1 on the front... Does that make me a weirdo?

-percious
 

JoeRider

New Member
Oct 17, 2003
28
0
0
I prefer 1.95's. Guess it all depends what you plan on using them for. I commute, hit fire roads and single track. If I planned on Hucking off bridges or downhill runs, then i'd want 2.4's. Either way I'd break my neck.

JR
 

cachehiker

New Member
Sep 30, 2003
120
0
0
Let's see. I switch back and forth between Panaracer Fire XC Pro 1.8's and some old WTB Racing Raptor 1.9's on a narrow set of rims. I switch back and forth between Ritchey Excavader Front/Elevader Rear 2.1's and WTB Velociraptor 2.1's on a second set of wider rims. Once I make a swap, the tires usually stay on until a situation comes along that simply demands a change.

The narrow Panaracers rule on narrow but generally smooth singletrack. They are light, fast, and hold a line very well. I'm suprised how well the front tire hooks up in the corners. They do better than expected in sand and mud but are clearly out of their element. At the preferred 55psi the rougher roads really start to hurt my ****. I save them for when I really need the extra speed.

The Racing Raptor semi-slicks were closeouts bought on a whim for riding the Moab Slickrock Trail. I run them anywhere from 45psi on slickrock up to 60psi on the road. They are good on the road and stick to sandstone, but on a lot of the local trails they can be downright scary. The front wheel and sometimes even the rear will just let go. They are worthless in the sand and mud. Being closeouts, they started to split from dry rot after the third or fourth ride. They'll be replaced soon enough, but I usually have them set up for commuting.

The Ritchey's are my newest tires at two months and they seem custom designed for most of our local trails. They are a skinnier 2.1 and are comfortable enough on the rough dirt roads and rocky trails at just under 50psi. They have a perfect balance of traction and weight they never seem to wash out in the loose gravel. Being 2.1's, I would expect them to be better in the sand, but the lower knob height just doesn't get the job done. They tend to pack up with mud too, but I live in the desert so that's rarely much of a problem.

The Velociraptors were what came stock on my hardtail. They are bigger 2.1's with giant blocky knobs and are pretty hefty at 700g each. These are my mudders and sandbox tires. In spite of the big knobs, I find I have to keep the pressure under 45psi or the front tire will just lose it on sandy hardpack. This makes them painfully slow on faster trails ridden with faster friends. After four years, they were starting to show their age when I picked up the Ritchey's. They are now kept in reserve for the occasional sand traps and mud bogs.

Each tire seems to have a terrain it was made for and a pressure it runs best at. Narrow tires are usually faster but less comfortable and more prone to snakebike. Wider tires tend to be more comfortable and offer more traction at the expense of speed. Lighter tires of a given size often lack taller knobs, have thinner treads and casings, or are a soft compound that sticks better but wears out quickly.

I consider having a quality set of tires that matches your riding style and the local terrain one of the best upgrades you can make. Avoid buying closeouts, many of these tires didn't sell for a reason. Once on the clearance rack, they've often been on the shelf long enough that dry rot is a distinct possiblity. I think tires are one place where you should just bite the bullet and pay close to retail. :)
 

sicle_fly

New Member
Oct 28, 2003
2
0
0
i ride nokian gazzalodis at 3.0 inches. these tryres are wide to the point where frame companies woften state whether they will fit gazza's on
 

Hecubus

New Member
Oct 18, 2003
321
0
0
There is no such thing as the better tire size. You pick the most appropriate one for the right conditions. Wider tires will generally offer much better traction, cornering, flat protection, and bump absorbtion at the expense of weight and higher rolling resistance. They will accelerate slower and require more power to keep them rolling.
 

ireman_1

New Member
Aug 10, 2003
578
0
0
50
Originally posted by umberto
what is so good about them?

Anything "fat" helps me look "skinny" (relatively speaking that is!). Maybe that's why I ride 2.5's. Enjoy life folks.

K.
 

Duckwah

New Member
Oct 30, 2002
755
0
0
I run 2.1s for long rides and a set of 2.3s for free ride

considering going to a 2.5 or 2.7 front for some chairlift runs this summer

the 2.3s are great for grip but they weigh a ton, roll slow and are serious overkill for trail rides

as has been pointed out before, its a matter of picking the right tyres for your type of riding
 

ihsan_jahanam

New Member
Oct 12, 2003
9
0
0
call me weird. i am running Specialized Enduro Pro 2.2 on front and Maxxi Flyweight 330 1.95 rear.

performance wise i prefer a fatter front tires as i always bash thru stuff and a skinny low weight tires helps me go a bit faster due to low resistance, high-rolling high spinning rear wheels.

and i found out cornering is much better due to the fact that the front tires rolls slower than the rear tires and it helps in tight cornering.

i'm running them on CK iso with 517's.
 

Greg-O

New Member
Aug 24, 2003
163
0
0
um... my tires are 2.1
so they're not that wide, and i can't vote in the poll :(
 

cRock

New Member
Dec 12, 2003
15
0
0
2.0 Python Air Lite up front (rolls fast) and a Ritchey Motovader 2.4 on the back (rear suspension for my hardtail and traction like a tractor tire).
 

dexmax

New Member
Mar 15, 2003
43
0
0
42
i use 1.5~1.9s on dry, hard soil, rough terrain..

2.0~2.1 on wet/dry, soft and loose soil, rough terrain..

2.1+(threads wider apart) on muddy, sandy terrain..
 

jmcmillanut

New Member
Nov 17, 2003
116
0
0
49
Big tires and and big wheels!

I run 29x2.1s (IRC Mythos (F&R)) on my Gary Fisher Mt. Tam_29. These roll and climb great for my riding purposes (purely recreational). I frequent hard pack trails and some sand in the spring/ summer/ fall, and snow in the winter (when it's not too deep).

The larger sizes are good for rough, rocky terrain, because you are less prone to pinch flatting and rim damage. We have lots of sharp, angular limestone in Utah.
 

PlainLazy

New Member
Jan 4, 2004
4
0
0
I run my bike on 2.0 and find that i get great traction on the dry dirt but as it rains and the dirt turns into mud my rear wheel ends up spin and spaying mud up my back. I need to buy two new tires some time in the furture and i get some time different.

So have a great time riding out.
 

hard_rock_god

New Member
Feb 14, 2004
18
0
0
i ride 1.95 becuse that is all the bigger i can stuff inbetween my forks and stays with out worying about tire rub
and the wider tires will actualy have a lower roling resistance in the 'loose-loomy" condisions due to the fact that they coast across the top instead of sinking and they will have better traction almost all around
but i always ride cross country so i dont need anything to "fat"
 

Meek One

New Member
May 5, 2004
629
0
0
When I was riding a lot in the 80's the style was a big 2.1 up front with a skinnier rear like 1.9. Now I think I have a 2.1 and 2.0 but like skinnier 1.9 or 1.95 and will probably go with them next time.
 

Mr_Kingkillaha

New Member
Jul 2, 2004
238
0
0
umberto said:
what is so good about them?

I used to ride on 1.9rear 2.5front, but now i am 2.3 all around. I think the fatter tires are mostly good for bettr traction, not much else.