I'm thinking of downgrading my tyres from 2.3s to something slimmer, maybe a 2.0. However, my dad thinks this is stupid idea as fatter is better in his view. Is he right?
Yes fater is bettar ur dad sounds wikid cool
Mark Datz - MemberYes fater is bettar ur dad sounds wikid cool
Which in English means: It might be better or it might be worse.
MD FTW.
Accepted wisdom is that wider tyres, all other things being equal, are faster as you can run them at lower psi.
Accepted stupidity is that lighter tyres are faster no matter what.
Depends on the conditions. There's a reason you see people on 1.5" tyres round Thetford way in the Winter....but I personally would struggle on such tyres on rooty rocky madness.
cynic-al, how is lower psi faster? lower psi means more contact area and more rolling resistant. Hence roadies on 23mm tyres at 120psi. I know lower psi gives better grip and you need grip to drive you along, but all the same.
GeeWavetree, that only works for some tyres, frinstance 2.35 Nevegals are a lot slower than 2.1s.
JBiker, lower pressure allows the tyre to deform over the trail surface while higher pressure forces it to go over obstacles. The example everyone uses is to push a loaded wheelbarrow across lumpy ground, far far easier with a soft tyre.
thin-ish for really muddy, fat for owt else
The example everyone uses is to push a loaded wheelbarrow across lumpy ground, far far easier with a soft tyre.
as someone who has wheeled many tons of rubble across building sites and up planks into skips, I'll tell that that is piffle. Soggy flat tyre plus a cwt. of hardcore and you can hardly move.
depends on the terrain really.
think a 2.1 will inevitably be an allround (xc event, race) quicker tyre but a 2.25 will give you added grip without being too much slower.
I run 2.25-2.35 on my AM turner 5 spot, it feels just right, ample grip, HR front and (come summer) fast rolling rear, Think a 2.0 would be too thin too cope with that type of bike
On my spesh carbon HT i run a 2.0 tyre which suits the bike and the nature of the type of riding i do on it
Think the difference being between A and B on a 10 mile xc course the spesh would hammer the 5 spot, its just simply s quick bike but stick in some big drops, techy steep downs and its the 5 spot which is quicker..
So to sum up, depending on what bike you have and what type of riding you do then yes thinner tyres could be quicker
2.1", 40 psi front and back, jobs a good'un.
End of.
"Soggy flat tyre plus a cwt. of hardcore and you can hardly move."
Who said anything about a soggy flat tyre 😕 That's just silly.
northwind: You did
The example everyone uses is to push a loaded wheelbarrow across lumpy ground, far far easier with a soft tyre.
I switched from 2.35 High Rollers to 2.10 Advantage and the bike seems to roll a whole lot easier. With low pressure in the 2.35 it was great for rolling over rocks and roots but on the flat and road I could hardly move the bike, like peddling in soup.
With quite high pressure in the 2.10's I speed along on the road and with a little less pressure, handles most of my not very hardcore, off road duties. I could probably go slightly fatter on the front for roots and rocks.
I ride skatepark bmx too and there it's high pressure to roll fast but you definitely lose out on grip.
Smaller tyres are generally lighter.
It all depends on the application - wider means more contact with ground and more weight; both factors which in increase the effort required to rotate the wheel. Tread pattern and compound also play significant part as does the fact that there is no standard accepted way of measuring tyre width. A 2.1 from one manufacturer may be a 2.3 from another.
I ride a specialized Enduro and the tyres up to now have been great as most of my riding has been in the lakes where they are suited. But since moving to Leeds ive increasingly been doing large amounts on the road as i'm a student and have no car.
Probably going to be a choice of where to lose speed, on or off the road. Ill take the off road speed any day.