What’s the general consensus on optimal rim width for 2.8 or 3.0 tyres then? 35mm? 45mm?

Is there much difference?

I guess the 35’s could run smaller tyres if needed… is there more? It seems like there should be for such a big percentage difference.

Thanks.

I changed from 45mm rims down to 35mm hope rims and in my opinion it’s improved the bike no end – the previous rims (with 3 inch tyres) felt a bit cumbersome, like a fat bike but none of the playfulness. The new rims make it feel like a normal hard tail but with a bit more grip. Of course this could be to do with switching from cheap rubbish OEM wheels to a nice set of Hope hoops but I’m convincing myself it’s because of rim width…

Hey Ade, I fretted over this for ages before finally getting 35mm internal rims. They are spot-on with 2.8in tyres.

Interested in this.

I have some 45mm arcs which I picked up because they were so cheap it seemed rude not to. They could still go back.

They’d be built up 28h with Novatec 771/2, so should be a decent lightweightish wheelset for the width.

They wouldn’t need to take smaller tyres, so that’s one aspect I don’t need to consider.

I’m running 40mm internal with 3.0 tyres. Tyre profile is fine.
DT Swiss XM551

I changed from 45mm rims down to 35mm hope rims and in my opinion it’s improved the bike no end

Interesting, I was debating going the other way

I’m running Ibis 738s which have internal width of 34mm running 2.8″ers which are a real ace combo.

I also have the option of running 2.35″ers – 2.8″ers.

if you go too wide with the rim to rubber ratio, you get a very square profile tyre which has a tenancy to straightline so it looses the playfulness

you get the same with fat bikes, 80-100mm with a fat tyre is great for float but can be a bit turgid in the tight singletrack, drop it 50-65mm rim and rolls and corners lovely.Its all down to personal choice and what you like.

Ive got 52’s on the fat, and 45’s on the 29+ and will be going 35mm on my 27.5+ so it plays nicely in a suspension fork with loads of clearance for mud.

cheers guys. interesting feedback on the 45 / 35 comparison…. I need a rear anyway, just wondering if it’s worth getting the set or putting a new hub on the 45 rear.

Similar to nedrapier, I picked up the 45’s pretty cheap – seemed like a bargain but on a pay-per-use basis they are probably the most expensive wheels I own – doh!

you’ve got a year to send ’em back, ade!

I did 35mm id and 3 inch tyres and didn’t get on with it, I always wondered if wider rims would help- basically they just weren’t very “plussy” or floaty, mostly they just felt like shit normal tyres. Maybe a wider rim would have given them the volume I wanted from it.

@nedrapier… not these ones unfortunately 🙂

I have WTB i35s, Ibis 738s and some Carbon ’41s. I also had a set of scrapers on my Stache. Definitely quite a weight penalty going to scrapers although they were running with 3.0 tyres. Everything else is on 2.8s and the profile is good for the tyres I use – Rekon/Nobbly Nic/WTB Ranger.

I am considering – in a slight tangent – running Cush-Core or equiv. My mate has just fitted them on some wide rims running 2.5 tyres. A massive faff apparently but sidewalls have far more support even at 15 PSI.

Unlike NW, I quite like that float-y feeling but It’d be interesting to try it with cush-core.

Anyway, as you were 😉

I went from 45mm to 35 as the steering felt lethargic and heavy with 45mm. 35mm transformed the ride. Lighter, quicker and more responsive steering.

I’m running 2.8 on 35mm. IIRC, Cy at Cotic did testing on this when experimenting with plus, and concluded that for him 35mm was Goldilocks, much less was suboptimal and more was unnecessary extra weight for little extra effect…

Personally I chose 35mm because that’s what the SH wheels I liked were… 😆

Alex – Member

Unlike NW, I quite like that float-y feeling

Oh I love the floatey feeling, I have 4.8s on the fatbike- it was the other way round, 3.0s on 35mms didn’t have enough floaty feeling for me to be worth it, so that’s why I think maybe more volume would have helped

Thanks. 35’s seem to have the popular vote.

I have a set of scrapers on the Sherpa (with 3″) and 35 hopes on the SolarisMAX.

Sherpa wheels are definitely heavier….

And yet I have just gone from 38mm to 45mm on the rear of my Fuse, 3.0″ tyres and it has made a huge positive difference. More traction especially while cornering, still has pop for the jumps n humps, less tyre roll and generally faster all round.

35s here with 2.8s and work extremely well and fit a Cotic Solaris just right. Tried a friend’s with 45s and tyres didn’t fill as right.

Maybe it depends on your starting point. When B+ came out I saw it a more efficent, more flexible fatbike so 45mm rims and 3″ tyres seem perfect to me. If you’re stepping up from a skinny bike then I guess you might find 35mm and 2.8″ is fat enough.

I came back down to 35mm/2.8 from 80mm/4.0 after a while in full fat land. I appreciated the additional traction, but I don’t care about float and got sick of fatbike tyres being rubbish for trail or hideously expensive if competent. I don’t really want to start a fat flame war, but I think it’s a shame that it disappeared back into relative niche rather than going properly mainstream.

For plus, 2.8 was enforced for me by the 29er I was plussing. I plan to end up at 3.0 front/2.8 rear with a set of regular 2.2-2.4’s on 29er rims for when I don’t want chub. Apart from increasing my front plus tyre, that’s where I am now, and now sensible sidewalls are a thing and the tyre companies have realised not everyone is a weight weenie, I might have found my perfect bike…