Fat tyres

[Xiorell]

How much difference are they gonna make?



Basically the fixxer-upper I am nearing completion is a MTB and on the front it has a 26x2.60 Kenda tyre, really fat! The back had a 26x2.195.
I was gonna get a pair of the 26x2.60s for it but I am not actually sure the frame will allow that width at the back, won't be able to test that till my rear wheel comes back from truing.



For the time being I am gonna slap on some 1.95s off another bike as funds are low till next week, but I am wondering, how much more traction would I really get from a 2.60 pair, over say a 2.10 or 2.30 pair?



Also, if I put the 2.60 back on the front and run a narrower one at the back is that going to be wierd?

 

[mickle]

Tyre cross section is only one part of a complex equation. Tread pattern, tread depth, tread edge definition (how worn out it is), tyre compound, tyre shape, whether or not you are running suspension, tyre pressure and of course the kind of terrain you are riding on - which can change profoundly within one rotation of a wheel. Body weight, riding style....

Some trail conditions demand high flotation - sand, loam, certain snow conditions. And some trail conditions which require high penetration - mud mainly, certain snow conditions....

The negatives most commonly associated with extra fat tyres are issues with clogging up in the frame due to reduced clearance and loss of accelaration thanks to the weight of all that extra rubber. The wheels are the worst place to carry excess weight BTW.

I never use anything bigger than 2.1.

Hope that helps!

 

[Steve H]

I'm in the same space as Mickle. 2.1's are capable of handling pretty much anything with a decent amount of tread on them. You might benefit from wider tyres in really gloopy, thick mud, but in the main I don't ride this type of terrain anywhere near enough to want to lose the benefit of more speed and acceleration on pretty much all other terrains.

 

[Xiorell]

nuff said, cheers guys, I'll go to 2.1s when I buy new ones next week

 

[zizou]

Also, if I put the 2.60 back on the front and run a narrower one at the back is that going to be wierd?

Quite alot of riders swear by that combination, wider tyre at the front for grip, smaller one at the rear for lower rolling resistance so it wont look too weird.

 

[Xiorell]

Quite alot of riders swear by that combination, wider tyre at the front for grip, smaller one at the rear for lower rolling resistance so it wont look too weird.

I had considered that might be the case but it sure looked odd to me when I was stripping the bike down lol. I will just bang the old ones back on, they are in good shape, and see about changing both to fresh 2.10s later

 

[Zoiders]

2.6 sounds nice but a lot frames don't really run with enough clearance to work well with that much rubber shoved in there.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I have always done it the other way way around. A 2.0(ish) at the front and 2.3 on the rear working on the principle that the back wheel is the drive wheel. I guess it depends a lot on what the trail conditions are like.

Re the 2.6 unless it is a DH of Freestyle bike I doubt very much if they would fit

Quite alot of riders swear by that combination, wider tyre at the front for grip, smaller one at the rear for lower rolling resistance so it wont look too weird.

 

[Xiorell]

I have always done it the other way way around. A 2.0(ish) at the front and 2.3 on the rear working on the principle that the back wheel is the drive wheel. I guess it depends a lot on what the trail conditions are like.

Re the 2.6 unless it is a DH of Freestyle bike I doubt very much if they would fit

The 2.60 is a Kenda Kolossal. It's really fat the 1.95s on the other bikes I've currently got strewn all over the place look tiny lol

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I bet. I started out with 1.95s and the first time I bought 2.3s they looked so oversized

 

[Zoiders]

You have to watch 2.6s with some forks as well, you can bottom them out on the fork crown when the fork compresses.

 

[Globalti]

After 23 years of mountain biking in all conditions possible I've come to the conclusion that a lot of this tyre stuff is bollocks. Certain tyres might have a softer rubber so might grip better but I really don't think width makes any serious difference to grip in most UK conditions. Wider tyres might grip better in the dry and narrower tyres bite down deep to find traction but few of us push our tyres hard enough to appreciate the difference. Most of us are preoccupied enough trying to maintain forward movement.

The only time tyre choice matters is when riding on tarmac, when you want as smooth and narrow a tyre as possible, pumped up hard. I used to do Polaris events on a 1.6" Kona own brand commuter tyre, which had a central ridge and it was perfectly adequate off road and fast on tarmac.

 

[Muddy Ground]

18 years MTB'ing..... tend to agree with the above statement regarding width. Quarter of an inch here and there makes no difference. I'd argue that 1.8" is too shallow a tyre though; Pinch Flat land there. I went down to a 1.8" mud tyre and the first exposed tree root blew it out. 2.1" are about right for the UK. 2.6" would be silly unless in deep Alaskan snow mid winter?

Tyre compound and design make a hell of a difference though. You try a Maxxis Super Tacky one day - bet any money you've not got the legs to push one XC beyond 16 miles in one hit. As for my favourite, the Maxxis Aspen, try one on the front on mud....

MG

 

[Xiorell]

Holy crap... I just took out the frankenstien MTB I put together today, on 1.95 tyres.

Compared to the 700C setup on my hybrid (which I've been gleefully riding about on for a couple of months), the rolling resistance is immense!


Definately will not be going bigger than 2.30 on the project bike, maybe 2.10 max