mtbtires.com

Received a Maxxis Advantage 2.4 yesterday. The first look shows that Maxxis is beginning to use “high volume” casings for their tires. Noticeably larger tire than their previous 2.35 offerings. Pre-stretching it now. Will have the specs up in a few days.
Folding bead, XC casing, very aggressive tread, softish feeling 60a rubber, 861g.

Also picked up an Inline 29×1.9/2.3 inner tube. Inline is a Seattle Bike Supply brand.

Happy to see that it is made by Kenda in Taiwan.

Weight: 217g
Width: 48.9mm

–
Rubber Down!

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.

MAY 03, 2006 — MORGAN HILL, CA — Specialized recently announced the Recycle a Tire program, which was created to put shredded treads to good use by repurposing them into retailer welcome mats.

“As outdoor enthusiasts, we’ve got an obvious interest in protecting the environment,” said Mike Sinyard, president of Specialized.

As part of the new program for 2006, bins especially designed to hold used tires will be placed in the showrooms of all the company’s U.S. concept stores. Each tire donor will receive a free commemorative water bottle. Capital Bicycle in Annapolis, Maryland was the first to roll out the program.

Specialized teamed with West Coast Rubber Recycling of Gilroy, California, as part of this pilot program. The mats will be featured at all Specialized retailers across the country in 2007.

“The Recycle a Tire program is a simple way that we can help make a difference,” Sinyard said.

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)

.
The WTB Weirwolf LT (2.55) is on its way. Preproduction tires are expected soon for wear testing/evaluation. The actual volume of the tires will not be known until the samples arrive. Production tires due late Sept/Oct.
.
29er specific tread designs are coming from WTB. Also due around Interbike ‘06.
.
Kenda USA wants the new manufacturing equipment for the BIG 29er tires. Taiwan is mostly convinced and it should happen ($35,000-38,000 cost).
.
The Karma “2.20″ is being relabeled as a 2.00″.
.
The Kenda Small Black 8 will be made in a 29″. Did not get in which width. I got my first look at an actually SB8. The knobs are small and tightly spaced. It should be grippy and fast on hardpack/fine loose over hardpack. In the mud it could make the Python look like a good choice.
.
The “96ers” could be a good thing for new 29er tire choices. At least once they were mentioned as reason to increase a company’s tire offerings and bigger tires as clearance is less of an issue front than rear.
.
Schwalbe North America is working hard to convince Schwalbe Germany more, and bigger, 29er tires are needed. Germany has the impression there are 500 bikes a year sold here (no emails need be sent). Germany wants an order of 2500 tires before making a new mold (~$16,000). The tread design and size has to be the same though different casing, bead and compound specs could be combined. Of their current thread designs the Racing Ralph or Knobbie Nick in a 2.25-2.35 were discussed (I also want the Big Betty 2.40 FR tire!)

Just wanted to let you know we’re coming with a new 29″ x 2.3 super light (680 gram) FULL KNOBBY available in August.
Jeff at Panaracer

As promised, here is the latest breaking news on the Rampage 29″ from Panaracer. This comes directly from our head of R&D, Mr. Masa Odani:

Size ; 29X2.35 (58-622)
Origin ; Made in Taiwan
Keep inflated ; 240-380kPa(35-55P.S.I.)
Actual width (estimated) ; 58mm +_ 1mm
Actual diameter(estimated) ; 742mm +_ 2mm
Bead wire ; Aramid(Kevlar) only
Compound ; Durable compound Durometer ; 62a
Casing color ; Black TPI ; 60
Weight (estimated (target)) ; 680gr

I know some of you want wire bead, let us hear from you on that and any other questions or suggestions!

Still Rolling…

Panaracer Jeff

(adapted from mtbr.com. Original thread)

Ten new (to us) models from Sea Otter. The Hutchinson and Michelin specs are posted. The Schwalbe and Syncros specs will be up in a week or so.

Hutchinson: Barracuda Air Light 2.10, Barracuda Tubeless 2.30, Pirahna Air Light 2.00, Pirahna Tubeless 2.30

Michelin: All Mountain Expert 2.2, XC Dry 2.0

Schwalbe: Racing Ralph 2.10 UST, Fast Fred 2.0 UST

Syncros: BHT 3 2.50 front, BHT 3 2.35 rear

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)

After about 25 years of mtb tires people are spoiled with the selection we now have. It did not happen overnight. We did not even get truly huge 26″ tires until ~10 years ago. Most of the 29er tires currently available are wider than the biggest 26″ tires available just 15 years ago. Three exceptions come to mind: Ritchey Z-Max 2.35 and Specialized Extreme and More Extreme 2.50 (designed by WTB). All about the same actual size and light XC casings.

The 29er tire market is still only ~7 years old. Most of the tires we have happened in the last 2-3 years. The changeover is happening but it is a little more complicated (and much lower volume) than the music industry moving from LPs to CDs to MP3s. The internet age motto “instant gratification is not soon enough” just does not work when the final product is not 100% electrons.

(adapted from a post on mtbr.com)