why bigger tires?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't matter ;-)

What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl keeps
telling I should go bigger, but being the weight weenie and
cheapskate I am, I "just say no". Is there a reason an XC
rider would want bigger tires? More traction, more
stability? I always figured bigger tires were for primarily
big hit/DH riders. Do bigger tires contribute more to trail
erosion, or only if skidded?

care to elaborate, any one?

penny

pas <pennysinvalid@cetinvalid.com> wrote:
> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
> matter ;-)
>
> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl keeps
> telling I should go bigger, but being the weight weenie
> and cheapskate I am, I "just say no". Is there a reason an
> XC rider would want bigger tires? More traction, more
> stability? I always figured bigger tires were for
> primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger tires contribute
> more to trail erosion, or only if skidded?
>
> care to elaborate, any one?
>
> penny

What size tires do you use now?

--
- Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)

> care to elaborate, any one?

You get more rubber on the ground, in technical sections
where you depend on friction you simply have more of it,
e.g., rockgardens. On lose muddy trails you sink down
less. Going on wooden plank bridges http://www.lowdin.nu/Mtbruntuppsala/LUNSEN-
filer/lunsenled11e.JPG wide tires makes it less likely
that you slip between the planks and get stuck with your
wheel. We have a lot of those where we ride in Sweden so
we always use
2.1" tires. http://www.lowdin.nu/Mtbruntuppsala/LUNSEN-
filer/lunsenl3c.jpg http://www.lowdin.nu/Mtbruntuppsala/LUNSEN-
filer/lunsenl28.jpg

Per

pas wrote:
> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
> matter ;-)
>
> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl keeps
> telling I should go bigger, but being the weight weenie
> and cheapskate I am, I "just say no". Is there a reason an
> XC rider would want bigger tires? More traction, more
> stability? I always figured bigger tires were for
> primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger tires contribute
> more to trail erosion, or only if skidded?
>
> care to elaborate, any one?
>
> penny
>
>
They're definitely not only for big hit or DH. As Per
already explained, more contact area, which is great not
only going DH over rougher terrain , but climbing up techy
stuff too. They just roll over stuff easier.

Of course the downside is the weight. Also, more importantly
than size is the tread and sidewall stiffness. Give me a
narrower, stiff side walled, good knobby designed tire over
a wide flexy, crappy tread one any day.

--
Slacker

> Of course the downside is the weight. Also, more
> importantly than size is the tread and sidewall stiffness.
> Give me a narrower, stiff side walled, good knobby
> designed tire over a wide flexy, crappy tread one any day.

Pliable sidewalls = less rolling resistance.

Here we go...

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

ZeeExSixAre wrote:
>>Of course the downside is the weight. Also, more
>>importantly than size is the tread and sidewall stiffness.
>>Give me a narrower, stiff side walled, good knobby
>>designed tire over a wide flexy, crappy tread one any day.
>
>
> Pliable sidewalls = less rolling resistance.
>
> Here we go...
>
Stiff sidewalls = better handling

Who cares about rolling resistance if they fold on you?

Slacker - off to the races ;-)

Zilla wrote:
> pas <pennysinvalid@cetinvalid.com> wrote:
>> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
>> matter ;-)
>>
>> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl
>> keeps telling I should go bigger, but being the weight
>> weenie and cheapskate I am, I "just say no". Is there a
>> reason an XC rider would want bigger tires? More
>> traction, more stability? I always figured bigger tires
>> were for primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger tires
>> contribute more to trail erosion, or only if skidded?
>>
>> care to elaborate, any one?
>>
>> penny
>
> What size tires do you use now?

2.10

> Zilla wrote:

>>
>> What size tires do you use now?

pas wrote:

2.10

IRC serac on the front, Michelin Hot S on the back. I guess
I haven't been paying much attention to tires. I've been
gifted with lots of new ones (thanks you know who you
are...) and so for what I've noticed about tires is, "worn"
or "new". I've experimenting with less tire pressure, and
boy does that sure change the ride from #40 psi. Maybe I
should pay more attention to tire type/size/tread?

penny

I vote for wide large volume tires. But I do weigh 220lbs
and don't speed much time worrying about my bikes weight.
Fixing flats and bike repairs on the trail are more of a
priority. Current bike about 30lbs.

I used Panaracer XC Pro 2.1 for a my first year riding and
they seemed to work good for So-Cal riding.

When a brought my 5-spot, 18 months ago, I started with 2.35
IRC Trailbears. I could run them at low pressure (28-30lbs)
and not get pinch flats. They are slow on the flats, but
climb well and feel good downhill.

I am now running a 2.5 WTB Weirwolf Race on the front and a
2.5 IRC Trailbear on the rear...28lbs in front, 30lbs in
back. In my experience descending steep loose stuff is not
as scary with wide tires and low pressure, they don't break
loose as easy in heavy braking.

Was up in Big Bear, CA. today and caught the sleeve of my
jersey on a branch. Pulled my handlebars to the right in
very sandy trail and when over the bars, landing on the back
of my head and left shoulder. My riding buddy could hear my
helmet cracking and it was so noticeable that I was
conscience of the noise even before coming to a stop. For
me, when things go wrong it happen so fast that it feels
like a blackout. I have been OTB about 5-6 times and each
time I have avoided face plant by rolling with it. I have
engrain in my head not to put my hands to stop the fall.
This was the first OTB on flat ground, all others were
downhill and not having my weight back.

"pas" <pennysinvalid@cetinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:10f3a49d94ti4b7@news.supernews.com...
> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
> matter ;-)
>
> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl keeps
> telling I
should
> go bigger, but being the weight weenie and cheapskate I
> am, I "just say
no".
> Is there a reason an XC rider would want bigger tires?
> More traction, more stability? I always figured bigger
> tires were for primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger
> tires contribute more to trail erosion, or only if
> skidded?
>
> care to elaborate, any one?
>
> penny

pas wrote:

> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
> matter ;-)
>
> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl keeps
> telling I should go bigger, but being the weight weenie
> and cheapskate I am, I "just say no". Is there a reason an
> XC rider would want bigger tires? More traction, more
> stability? I always figured bigger tires were for
> primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger tires contribute
> more to trail erosion, or only if skidded?
>
> care to elaborate, any one?

Bigger tyre pros: more cushioning, increased grip Bigger
tyre cons: increased rolling resistance, increased weight

You already ride a full bouncer, so the cushioning benefits
are pretty much negated right there. It's therefore a trade-
off between increased grip against increased rolling weight
and rolling resistance.

My personal opinion is that grip is far more influenced by
body position and proper weighting than tyre properties. I
view the odd section where I have to get off and hike as an
acceptable trade off to being able to ride longer and with
less effort. YMMV, depending on the terrain and type of
riding you do.

"pas" <pennysinvalid@cetinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<10f3a49d94ti4b7@news.supernews.com>...
> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
> matter ;-)
>
> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl keeps
> telling I should go bigger, but being the weight weenie
> and cheapskate I am, I "just say no". Is there a reason an
> XC rider would want bigger tires? More traction, more
> stability? I always figured bigger tires were for
> primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger tires contribute
> more to trail erosion, or only if skidded?
>
> care to elaborate, any one?
>
> penny

I suspect there is no definitive answer and it's all down to
personal preferences.

After experimenting with a number of set-ups, I've settled
for Panaracer Trail Blasters (sometimes Fire XCs) 1.8s front
and back at
50/55 psi. Yes, the ride can be as hard as hell but I find
the handling more stable/predictable on this set up than
the wider tyres and/or lower pressures alternatives. I
ride mainly on hard pack (or at least it was before the
onset of the British summer) and mud (the current summer
conditions). If I did a lot of rocks or roots then it
might be different.

I also have a number of trails within 4 miles of home so I
ride on-road to my normal off-road trails which I'll admit
encourages me to put up with the high pressures.

Joe

pas wrote:
> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
> matter ;-)
>
> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl keeps
> telling I should go bigger, but being the weight weenie
> and cheapskate I am, I "just say no". Is there a reason an
> XC rider would want bigger tires? More traction, more
> stability? I always figured bigger tires were for
> primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger tires contribute
> more to trail erosion, or only if skidded?
>
> care to elaborate, any one?
>
> penny

I'd keep going on your current tires until you need new ones
and then reevaluate. I have Specialized Enduro Pro 2.2's on
the SS and Intense System 4 2.25's on my Epic, but those
Intense tires are huge for their labeled size, and are more
like 2.3 or even 2.4's.

I'll probably go a little smaller on my next set for the
Epic, but the grip of the Intense tires is really, really
good. They are a bit heavy and I think I'd probably just get
the 2.2 Enduros for that bike as well the next time around.

One more benefit of larger tires (if running tubes) is less
likelyhood of a pinch flat.

In the end it's all about preference, you idiot. ;)

Matt

It is a control factor, especially in loose and/or technical
sections. More tire contact = better cornering, better
braking and better high-freq bump absorption. They may not
roll as well, but the trade-off is well worth it to me for
the kind of riding I mostly do. Experiment a bit. Buy a WTB
Motorpator 2.4 and put it on the front only, ride some
technical stuff that requires a lot of front brake and see
the difference. A few of my friends run a 2.4 up front and a
2.3-2.1 in back and have great success with that combo. I
prefer the control of the 2.4 Moto in both front and back.
If I'm riding hardpack, I pump them up over 40 psi so they
don't "roll" off of the rim in hard cornering.

JD

"pas" <pennysinvalid@cetinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:10f3a49d94ti4b7@news.supernews.com...
> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
> matter ;-)
>
> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl keeps
> telling I
should
> go bigger, but being the weight weenie and cheapskate I
> am, I "just say
no".
> Is there a reason an XC rider would want bigger tires?
> More traction, more stability? I always figured bigger
> tires were for primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger
> tires contribute more to trail erosion, or only if
> skidded?
>
> care to elaborate, any one?
>
> penny
>
>

Cheaper way of getting more suspension. Especially the
front. I like running big non DH 2.5 tires in the front. I
normally run smaller tires in the back.

pas <pennysinvalid@cetinvalid.com> wrote:
> Zilla wrote:
>> pas <pennysinvalid@cetinvalid.com> wrote:
>>> educate me, discuss or call me an idiot, doesn't
>>> matter ;-)
>>>
>>> What's the deal with different tire sizes? Tuff grrl
>>> keeps telling I should go bigger, but being the weight
>>> weenie and cheapskate I am, I "just say no". Is there a
>>> reason an XC rider would want bigger tires? More
>>> traction, more stability? I always figured bigger tires
>>> were for primarily big hit/DH riders. Do bigger tires
>>> contribute more to trail erosion, or only if skidded?
>>>
>>> care to elaborate, any one?
>>>
>>> penny
>>
>> What size tires do you use now?
>
> 2.10

For XC riding, my 2.10s (IRC Mythos, and Jones XC) do
fine at 35psi.

--
- Zilla Cary, NC (Remove XSPAM)

In article <10f3m9jr4tm3o12@news.supernews.com>,
pennysinvalid@cetinvalid.com says...
>
> > Zilla wrote:
>
> >>
> >> What size tires do you use now?
>
> pas wrote:
>
> 2.10
>
> IRC serac on the front, Michelin Hot S on the back. I
> guess I haven't been paying much attention to tires. I've
> been gifted with lots of new ones (thanks you know who you
> are...) and so for what I've noticed about tires is,
> "worn" or "new". I've experimenting with less tire
> pressure, and boy does that sure change the ride from #40
> psi. Maybe I should pay more attention to tire
> type/size/tread?
>
> penny
>
>
>
>

A 2.1 Hot S is like a 2.2 or 2.3 in most other tires, it
won't even fit on the back of mine even though a Michelin
Wildgripper XLS 2.1 fits with lots of clearance. So if you
go any bigger you are going to have to get more tattoos and
piercings and call yourself missy.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays- (http://www.ramsays-/)
online.com

Slacker wrote:

> ZeeExSixAre wrote:
>
>>> Of course the downside is the weight. Also, more
>>> importantly than size is the tread and sidewall
>>> stiffness. Give me a narrower, stiff side walled, good
>>> knobby designed tire over a wide flexy, crappy tread one
>>> any day.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pliable sidewalls = less rolling resistance.
>>
>> Here we go...
>>
> Stiff sidewalls = better handling
>
> Who cares about rolling resistance if they fold on you?
>
> Slacker - off to the races ;-)

Supple sidewalls = better traction and smoother ride

miles

"JD" <dij@usafcct.com> wrote in message
news:ebf270c9.0407120916.2fed9c87@posting.google.com...
> It is a control factor, especially in loose and/or
> technical sections. More tire contact = better cornering,
> better braking and better high-freq bump absorption. They
> may not roll as well, but the trade-off is well worth it
> to me for the kind of riding I mostly do. Experiment a
> bit. Buy a WTB Motorpator 2.4 and put it on the front
> only, ride some technical stuff that requires a lot of
> front brake and see the difference. A few of my friends
> run a 2.4 up front and a 2.3-2.1 in back and have great
> success with that combo. I prefer the control of the 2.4
> Moto in both front and back. If I'm riding hardpack, I
> pump them up over 40 psi so they don't "roll" off of the
> rim in hard cornering.
>
> JD

Yeah, what he said. I'm one of those guys he put a 2.4 on
the front of the red geared bike, that didn't quite fit on
the SS last year, and I love it. The 2.4 MR almost never
breaks loose. Especially steep descents, my front almost
never locks up, and it's nice to be able to use the front
brake for control whilst my hinder parts are being polished
by the rear tire. Cornering, etc. etc. all proves out.

Paladin