Cheers all

Not sure but I have 2.35 Big Apples in a 93 Hahana if that helps in any way.

Not sure but I have 2.35 Big Apples in a 93 Hahana if that helps in any way.

I was going to say not great by modern standards and thought maybe this contradicted my memory. But a slick tyre needs less space and no mud room.

I’d say 2.1 tops if its muddy

2.3 if nothing sticking

But with all the vagaries of what we mean by tyre size who knows. 2.1 Velociraptors were fine in my 94 Kona

I was looking at some knobblies from px that were 2.1 or 2.3 I guess as I thought I’d need 2.1 ta

From memory I recall mates riding them with 2.2″ tyres in them through the mud…it wasn’t massive amounts of room but there was enough to keep riding…I suspect 2.3″ would be pushing it though. ‘Back then’ the thinking was a thinner tyre on the back to cut through the crud and get grip so a lot of people were riding around on 1.9″ tyres.

2.2 Specialized Enduro tyres and 2.2 Trail Kings/Rubber Queens are too big. 2.25 IRC Back Country’s fit as do DMR Moto’s.

2.1.2.2 depending on knobblies, manufacturer etc.
Also may depend on true-ness of wheel and how tight you have the QR set up – can find flex and movement under pedalling, and I’ve found the chain stays get a bit worn.

2.1s on a similar age Kilauea here and I’m happy with that.

Back then mates of mine were on 1.5″ Continental Cross Countrys!

I recall 1 mate who ran a dart sc on the back – no idea why and he just said why not? That was 2.2…like I said, it was tight but rideable…we never questioned the width with him, it was always the tyre choice!

My 97 lava Dome will take up to a 2.3 with room for mud

My 1995 Cindercone took a largish 2.1 without too much issue,

My later Caldera’s have a differt chainstay and will take a 2.1 but 1.95 fits betterer 😉

I found bigger tyres were a ball ache to get past the brake pads when taking the wheel out