Forum menu
Why do tyre widths between manufacturers not match up? Which bit of the tyre do they measure?
[img] 
[/img]
The tyre on the left, the Schwalbe King Jim, is badged as a 2.35", whereas the Intense CC on the right is a 2.25". Both on Mavic 717 Discs. Sure a tenth of an inch is pretty small beer, and it's not that I'm bothered, I just wondered how the visually bigger tyre can be measured as narrower?
😉
I would like to know that Holy Grail question too
Tyres are measured by a blind man on a galloping horse.
By a team of monkeys with bendy rulers.
Some companies have different teams of monkeys, but just one bendy ruler for their different tyres.
Other companies have differently bent rulers, but just one team of monkeys, to measure their different tyres.
Continental has many, many different teams of monkeys, and even more differently bent rulers.
IIRC the standard answer is "across the carcass, not including knobbles" but I'm not sure that's accurate, or a good measure.
By a team of monkeys with bendy rulers.Some companies have different teams of monkeys, but just one bendy ruler for their different tyres.
Other companies have differently bent rulers, but just one team of monkeys, to measure their different tyres.
Continental has many, many different teams of monkeys, and even more differently bent rulers.
😆
Now, if an infinite number of monkeys measure an infinite number of tyres, would they get an infinite number of infinite widths?
"Tyres are measured by a blind man on a galloping horse"
brilliant, nearly split my scar open laughing
Ask Kenda, they make consistently and accurately sized tyres, which is completely shocking in this industry... Worst inaccuracy I've had from them was a 2.1 that measured up 2.0. That's across the width, including knobbles, which is the only sensible and practical way to do it.
It's really obvious a lot of tyre companies are just lying, the tyre "size" gets chosen by the marketing men presumably... "OK, here's the new Highroller, * it measures 2.15 across, so let's call it a 2.15" says the designer. "No!" says the marketeer, "Nobody'll buy a 2.15 trailbike tyre that weighs this much, we'll say it's a 2.35"
Conti made that heroic attempt to pretend they just use a different standard, what was it, "This is the measurement of the treaded part of the tyre, from side to side, when the tyre is laid out flat". But then people impolitely pointed out that their tyres didn't meet that standard either.
And then you get, "The new Rubber Queen 2.4 is huge". Is it really? I measured mine, it was 2.4 inches across. But people expect Contis to be completely crooked sizewise so when they come up accurate, it's a shock- to the extent that some people couldn't even get them in their frames, because they either believed their 2.4 MKs were 2.4, or they assumed all 2.4s would be undersized.
It's all a load of balls tbh. But it does seem to be getting a wee bit better doesn't it? The new Contis and Maxxises are mostly very close frinstance. Course that's just even more confusing since the 2.25 Ardent is bigger than a 2.35 Highroller.
Tyres are measured by a blind man on a galloping horse.
Post of the week! 😆
On a more serious note write a standard and post it tyre manufacturers and try to get them all to adhere to it.
sturmey - Member
"On a more serious note write a standard and post it tyre manufacturers and try to get them all to adhere to it. "
"Measure it. With a ruler. Then write it on the side". Sorted.
The differing standards are key... Even my 2.35" Kenda SB8s seem a smidge wider than my 2.35" Kenda Nevegals. My 2.25" Ardents are seemingly wider than 2.35 Minions.
On the flipside, my 2.0 Spesh Captain look massive.
Does the actual tyre width depend on the rim width to which it's attached? ie a wider rim width will result in a wider tyre?
Does the actual tyre width depend on the rim width to which it's attached? ie a wider rim width will result in a wider tyre?
Yes, and the inflation pressure. Still not enough variance to excuse some tyres being 0.2" smaller than they claim.