MTB Tyre width sizing !?!?

BigAirNig

Hi

I've just spoken with One Industries who import Maxxis MTB tyres to find out about accurate tyre width/volume sizing.

Having just bought an ADvantage 2.25 which reviews mention comes up as wider than many, I was wanting to see how it compares with others - so I can be sure I get the right size up front [I plan to use the ADvantage on the rear]. I wanted a larger volume tyre on the front wheel and thought a 2.35 High Roller would do the job .... then I discover the numbering system for tyre sizes and realise it's SMALLER !!

ADvantage 2.25 shows as 54/56-559 >> giving a 54mm width

>> a 2.35 High Roller shows as 52-559 giving a 52mm width.

Why on earth is a 2.35" width tyre smaller than a 2.25 from the same brand [or any brand for that matter!?!?]

Apparently the High Roller is an older tread pattern and measurement was less good when it was designed [rough explanation from One Industries guy I spoke to who was very helpful - as best he could be]

If I want a High Roller on the front with larger volume than the 2.25 Advantage, I need a 2.4 HRII which weighs a ton more.

If you convert the mm size to inches it doesn't match the sizing anyway, so I wonder where the whole thing came from and why it seems to make no sense for us - the buying public !??!?!!?

If we want a high volume casing - why don't they make it clear! Shouldn't a 2.25 be standardised, so we know .... and if the 2.35 is smaller - why not call it a 2.1 or 2.2 etc, since it's clearly not a 2.35 in real terms.....

:?:

:?

benpinnick

Lol. You shoudl add conti tyres to your test, that would really blow the measurements up. Conti have special calipers.

.blitz

All 2.35 and 2.5 Maxxis tyres are on the narrow side but having said that the height is fairly normal. 2.35 HRs are particularly pathetic though

All 2.25 and 2.4 Maxxis tyres are pretty much as expected it's just how they are

If you want a bigger Advantage on the front the 2.4 is a good size without the additional gnar and weight of a HRII

nicklouse

some companies measure carcass some measure tread width. some have changed, some use both.

YeehaaMcgee

.blitz wrote:

All 2.25 and 2.4 Maxxis tyres are pretty much as expected it's just how they are

Whereas the 2.5" Swampthing is as narrow as some XC tyres

nicklouse wrote:

some companies measure carcass some measure tread width. some have changed, some use both.

They also use different rim width estimates, so I've been told, so an XC-oriented tyre will be measured (or estimated) on a narrow rim, and a freeride/DH tyre will be measured (or estimated) on a wide rim.

Then there's the case of exageration. XC tyres will often measure up slightly wider than sold, and vice ersa for DH tyres.

The Rookie

There certainly doesn't seem much width difference between my 2.1 XCPro and 1.8 panaracer Mud.....

Gwaredd

Perhaps they work out the width using some weird percentage calculation with the height of the sidewall or something?

Car tyres differ too, so a Bridgestone 225 section tyre might be wider than a Michelin, but as they're much larger, a few mm difference is not as noticeable as a bike tyre.

It is however, a right pain in the arse.

warpcow

God bless those picky Germans:

http://reifenbreite.silberfische.net/reifen-Maxxis.html

nicklouse

warpcow wrote:

God bless those picky Germans:

http://reifenbreite.silberfische.net/reifen-Maxxis.html

nice.

BigAirNig

Well - having my new 2.25 ADvantage on the rear AND a new Bontrager XR4 Team issue TLR 2.2 front.....

..... I can report that the ADvantage is certainly larger than the XR4.

I wanted a large volume front tyre and some reviews said the XR4 came up rather large, but it's smaller than expected. Has 54-559 written on it.

Is also smaller than the 2.25 Nobby Nic Pacestar it replaces I think.

I shall try it anyway - and can always invoke the Bonty guarantee if I find it not to my liking. I had hoped it would be closer in volume to the ADvantage though. ho-hum

.blitz

warpcow wrote:

God bless those picky Germans:

http://reifenbreite.silberfische.net/reifen-Maxxis.html

wow!

BigAirNig

Yes - but which sections are we meant to understand?

Are they split in to different measurements with tyres fitted to different rims etc?

Anyone speak german to give the basic translation !?!?

.blitz

e.g. http://reifenbreite.silberfische.net/re ... x2.25.html

carcass width - tread width - height

followed by various combos of rim & pressure

benpinnick

BigAirNig wrote:

Yes - but which sections are we meant to understand?

Are they split in to different measurements with tyres fitted to different rims etc?

Anyone speak german to give the basic translation !?!?

Google Chrome does a nice job.

YeehaaMcgee

BigAirNig wrote:

Well - having my new 2.25 ADvantage on the rear AND a new Bontrager XR4 Team issue TLR 2.2 front.....

..... I can report that the ADvantage is certainly larger than the XR4.

I wanted a large volume front tyre and some reviews said the XR4 came up rather large, but it's smaller than expected. Has 54-559 written on it.

Is also smaller than the 2.25 Nobby Nic Pacestar it replaces I think.

I shall try it anyway - and can always invoke the Bonty guarantee if I find it not to my liking. I had hoped it would be closer in volume to the ADvantage though. ho-hum

Oh come on. The XR4 is a 2.2"
Both other tyres are 2.25"
So, the Bonty SHOULD be narrower :roll:

BigAirNig

If ONLY things were that logical ... if you look at the early part of the thread ....

a 2.35 High Roller is sized 52-559 compared to the 2.25 ADvantage being 54/56-559 ..... and they are both the same bleedin' brand ! What logic says a 2.35 should be smaller than a 2.25 made by the same people ??

.... so all logic was out the window already. Otherwise all 2.2's should match as should all 2.25's etc etc .... but they don't.

PLUS - various reviews I read stated the XR4 in 2.2 was more like a 2.30/35 from other brands - but that's not so much the case ... unless they meant a High Roller [although that's even smaller still !]

YeehaaMcgee

BigAirNig wrote:

If ONLY things were that logical ... if you look at the early part of the thread ....

a 2.35 High Roller is sized 52-559 compared to the 2.25 ADvantage being 54/56-559 ..... and they are both the same bleedin' brand ! What logic says a 2.35 should be smaller than a 2.25 made by the same people ??

I know, I knwo I know. But now, you're moaning about things that actually DO make sense

benpinnick

BigAirNig wrote:

PLUS - various reviews I read stated the XR4 in 2.2 was more like a 2.30/35 from other brands - but that's not so much the case ... unless they meant a High Roller [although that's even smaller still !]

Sort of. The XR4s are exactly 2.35 at their widest part on a flow rim. All this really tells you is that lots of other companies (especially a german one with a horse logo) tend to overstate their width, and more so understate the weight (by up to 20% in my experience).