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

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by umberto, Oct 12, 2003.

?

what size tires u got?

  1. 1.9

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. 1.95

    5 vote(s)
    5.6%
  3. 2.0

    20 vote(s)
    22.5%
  4. 2.24

    45 vote(s)
    50.6%
  5. 2.4

    19 vote(s)
    21.3%
  1. umberto

    umberto New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    what is so good about them?
     
    Tags:


  2. yash

    yash New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. percious

    percious New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  4. JoeRider

    JoeRider New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    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
     
  5. cachehiker

    cachehiker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    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 arse. 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. :)
     
  6. sicle_fly

    sicle_fly New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    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
     
  7. Hecubus

    Hecubus New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2003
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    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.
     
  8. bikefreak101

    bikefreak101 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am perfectly fine with my 1.95 tires
     
  9. ireman_1

    ireman_1 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anything "fat" helps me look "skinny" (relatively speaking that is!). Maybe that's why I ride 2.5's. Enjoy life folks.

    K.
     
  10. Duckwah

    Duckwah New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    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
     
  11. ihsan_jahanam

    ihsan_jahanam New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    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.
     
  12. Greg-O

    Greg-O New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    um... my tires are 2.1
    so they're not that wide, and i can't vote in the poll :(
     
  13. cRock

    cRock New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    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).
     
  14. dexmax

    dexmax New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    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..
     
  15. jmcmillanut

    jmcmillanut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. PlainLazy

    PlainLazy New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    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.
     
  17. Ghr7891

    Ghr7891 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are the perfect comprimise between fast rolling and wide (stable).
     
  18. hard_rock_god

    hard_rock_god New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    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"
     
  19. Meek One

    Meek One New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    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.
     
  20. Mr_Kingkillaha

    Mr_Kingkillaha New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
Loading...
Loading...