mtbtires.com

“… i guess though tire selection is a personal thing and besides terrain perhaps even riding style can determine whether you like or dislike a tire…”

He nailed that one and it is especially riding style that comes into play.

The sidewall flex/squirm is a very personal thing. Terrain, rider weight, type of riding and riding style all contribute.

I tend to like rounder profile tires for the way they track (straight line stability) and change direction. A narrower rim gives most tires this profile.

Some say a wider rim reduces pinch flats. I can not say I have noticed much difference and if anything, I pinch more with the same tire on a wider rim. Especially the case if it is a narrowish tire on a wideish rim.

I also like lower pressures for the way it lets the tire conform to the terrain and not be deflected as easily. Give a better feel and feedback. Too high a pressure and the tire bounces/deflects off of bumps/rocks/roots in strange directions.
I do feel the sidewall flex - in a good way. It is telling me the tire is working. The tread and casing conforming. Giving me info on the available grip. If I feel the tire “wallowing” or folding the pressure is too low. The pressure also needs to be high enough to support the tread blocks and not so high that it does not let the tread “work.” I know lighter riders than me that can not stand the “squirm” of tires even when running higher pressures than I use. It may actually be the tread flexing or slipping that they are noticing.

Every tire has a pressure sweet-spot where this balance takes place and varies with the rider, bike, rim and terrain. This brings up an mostly overlooked part of bike setup and tuning:
Many hours and dollars are spent on suspension setup. The affects of tire pressure on the suspension is largely ignored. Change the tire pressure and you may need to change the shock damping. The tire construction (tread design, rubber compound and casings) itself changes the handling and can require a suspension adjustment. I have ridden tires that are just plain awful on a rigid bike and shine on a boinger.

(adapted from a mtbr.com post)

Hutchinson did confirm the 29×2.0 Python at Interbike. Latest word is it will be produced (only) in a Tubeless Ready version.

“We plan to make the Python 29″ in TUBELESS READY. This means that Python 29″ will be able to be installed using FAST’AIR tubeless latex on a UST compatible rim/wheel or you can mount this tire (with tubeless beads) onto a normal rim and use a tube. To be clear, there will only be one (version) but this Tubeless Ready tire can be mounted tubeless or with a tube.”

I have been thinking that the stock ExiWolf tires on my Redline Monocog 29er look bigger than the one I measured last year.

Today I measured one. It is bigger: The casing is about 2mm wider and 2mm taller. This clearly makes it the highest volume 29er knobby currently on the market.

I have added the re-measure to the spec charts along with the original numbers.

Mounting and removing tires is a basic and necessary task for every cyclist. A surprising number of riders struggle with it because they have never been shown the proper technique.

The Team Estrogen web site has the best description I have seen: Levers? Levers? We Don’t Need No Stinking Levers!

It is aimed at road riders but the method is the same for mtb tires.

Some UST and DH tires may be easier to mount if the beads are lubricated with soapy water or, my preference, Schwalbe Easy Fit mounting fluid. It can be easier to grip the tires when using the Easy Fit fluid.

High Volume vs. Strong Sidewall, which is best for lower psi applications in XC/trail use?

In most cases I will go for the lighter, more supple casing. It lets the tire conform to the terrain and work better. Even at lower pressure a stiffer casing can not conform as well.
You basically have to run DH tires at lower pressure to get a similar feel.

The specific tire construction, casing size and tread design have to be factored in.

Your bike setup can make a difference, too. I rode a set of 2.6″ DH tires on a rigid bike and even at 15psi (tried 15-28psi) they rode harshly and did not corner well. Later used the same tires on the same bike with the addition of a suspension fork and they worked great @ ~20psi. Nice ride and grip.

With any tire you need to run enough pressure for pinch protection. The DH casing tire should protect the tube a little better than the XC casing.

I also posted the following in a effects of rim width thread:

Personally I prefer a narrowish rim for most tires and most of my riding. Generally I find the tires to track better (straight line stability) and have a more progressive feel when leaning into a corner.

On a wider rim, especially with a tire that already has a square profile (tall side knobs), the tire can feel “edgy” when leaned off center.
The wider rim can reduce sidewall squirm in hard cornering if you have that issue (I do not). It is also better if you are jumping or doing drops as the tire is less likely to roll off the rim with sudden side loads.

Some tread designs, even if they have tall side knobs, work better on wider rims because they have few or no transition blocks between the center tread and the edge (many DH designs are like this).

(adapted from a mtbr.com post)

A common question is what is the difference? It depends on the specific tire and company.

Some companies, like Conti (Bontrager, Michelin,…), use a lower spec for their wire bead tires. Others (Panaracer, Nokian,…) make wire and folding bead versions of the same tire with no difference other than the bead.

Others the tires look the same but are XC and DH versions (Kenda Blue Groove/Nevegal).

You have to check the specs.

I keep hearing people claim wire bead tires are harder to mount and others claiming folding bead tires are harder.

It is not the type of bead that makes the difference. It is the specific tire and/or tire/rim combo.

Every tire company (and sometimes tire model) has a slightly different bead shape and bead diameter while still being within the accepted tolerance range. Same for rims. If you have a tire that is on the small side of the range and a rim on the large side it can be nearly impossible to mount the tire, regardless of the bead material.

Some of the hardest tires to mount are Ritchey folding bead models (but not all of them). Their wire bead versions are easier. A folding bead Ritchey is a huge PITA to mount on a Rhyno Lite (and many other rims) while a Wire bead Kenda slips onto most rims without a second thought.

Casing construction can affect mounting ease, too.

The other variables include tire width. Narrower tires can be more difficult. If you are comparing the folding and wire bead Nevegals, they have different casings. The stiffer, thicker casings of the wire bead version also make it harder to mount.

It use to be claimed that folding bead road tires were harder to mount than wire bead.

(adapted from a mtbr.com post)

One of the reasons I started this site was the inconsistencies in mtb tire sizing. I was seeing many people stating “tire X is called a 2.2 but it is really a 1.9″ or “it is a true 2.3″ tire.” Saw different riders calling the same tire “smaller than claimed” and “a real 2.xx.” Very confusing.

As far as I am concerned no knobby tire is a “true” anything. You can have wide treads and narrow casings, narrow treads and wide casings or the tread and casing can be the same width.

The “2.XX” method is traditional and it is expected by consumers. It has not been “official” for many decades.

The WTB “Global Measurement System” is much better (i.e. 49/52, casing width in mm / tread width in mm). WTB tried to mark their tires only with the GMS size but were forced to add the traditional width size later, even though they do not match (Exiwolf 29×2.3 55/50, 55mm=2.16″ / 50mm=1.97″).

The ISO size (AKA ETRTO) on the casing (55-622) is the tire section width and bead seat diameter in mm (this is the only “official” measuring method). There is no definition of or instructions for measuring the cross section. Is it the casing or the tread? It just does not work well for knobby tires.

It can not be a lie if there is no solid standard.

(adapted from a post on mtbr.com)