Maxxis Highroller actual size?

mrfmilo

Hi
Ive heard Highrollers come up quite small in diameter, is this true? Does the 2.35 come up more as a 2.0?

Or does anybody run 2.35 on a GT avalanche fram,e?

Thanks

xtreem

2.1 Highrollers are smaller than the Nevegal 2.1 on the Avalanche but the 2.35 Highrollers are only a bit bigger than the 2.1 Nevegals.

Don't know how much clearance you have with the Nevegal at the rear but I'm pretty sure you'll be fine with the 2.35 HRs.

mrfmilo

(Btw I meant do the 2.35 come up as 2.2's not 2.0's)

Thanks, I currently have Specialized Enduro 2.2s on, and they have little clearance on either side, about 8mm. They come up quite wide though - about 2.3, I might try out the HighRollers then 8)

Thanks

Northwind

I have a feeling that they measure the total radius of the gripping surface, rather than the width of the tyre, so it's 2.35 from sidewall to sidewall essentially. Which is kind of gibberish, but does have the advantage that it's consistent, it'll be the same on every rim. Much prefer Kenda's approach, it's as wide from side to side as they say it is, with very few exceptions. But, that can vary, if you stick a 2.35 on a 717 it'll be narrower than 2.35 as it's pinched, if you put it on a wide DH rim it'll be wider.

CustomReign

My 2.1 High Rollers actually measure 1.9 in total. Not sure how they can get away with it. While the larger volume is great, the supposed 2.1 are not all that comfortable due the lack of air volume. They also lower the bike which I don't personally like.

mrfmilo

Thanks Northwind and customreign

I have Halo Freedom wheels which are pretty wide, so that might make 'em wider. They seem to be a popular choice so I'll try them out, if they're too fat I'll sell them.

Thanks

Thewaylander

Never had a measure problem with high rollers,

My 2.35 high rollers are about the same as my 2.35 kenda blue grooves.

The worst for width was nobby nics the 2.1 being abouit 1.7 wide and sketchy as hell

mrfmilo

I do have some 2.1's that I don't use as they are too small in diameter, even though they are 2.1. So I was wondering if it's the same with the 2.35s

CustomReign

Exactly that Mrfmilo,

I had to get 2.5's for my DH bike knowing they'd be nearer to 2.35's. They transform the ride though. Top notch.

Feel a bit let down by the two 2.1 LUSTS I just bought as athough grip is okay, they make the bike feel rather low and unconfident - or is it just my unease when looking down at a 1.9?

Now hanging up in the shed

mrfmilo

mrfmilo

I wonder why they're called High Rollers if they roll quite low...?

And on your DH bike (with the highrollers) do you hav 42a or 60a? If 42a how quick do they wear:?

CustomReign

Hi

I have Super Tacky which I think is 42a on the front and a 60a on the back. I replaced the Michelin comp 16's that came with the bike that were quite worn. In comparisoon, I felt line the bike was on rails. The fact that it weighs about 50lbs probably adds to that!

I think 20.5's are the way forward for fun XC although not the lightest. aybe also look at Ignitors if you want large volume comfort.

CustomReign

...forgot to mention, the 42a is on the front and is going okay so far and the 60a out back gets a good pounding after a few uplift sessions, but it rather depends on your style with regard to ware. As I'm not that good and hang on the back brake, it does lose tread but no more than is to be expected. For XC, they'll be okay for a few months as long as you don't do too much road.

CustomReign

''I think 20.5's are the way forward for fun XC although not the lightest. aybe also look at Ignitors if you want large volume comfort.''

Suppoed to say 2.35!

....I'm half asleep

mrfmilo

Thanks alot for your help!