Forum home Mountain biking forum MTB buying advice

MTB rolling tyres advice

sad_musosad_muso Posts: 16
edited April 2015 in MTB buying advice
Hi All,

After some advice please. I need to replace the tyres on my Kona Splice 29er - I currently have Geax Mezcal 29 x 2.1. I have just ordered these http://www.wiggle.co.uk/schwalbe-racing-ralph-performance-dual-compound-29er-tyre/ but am now worried that I'll not get as much rolling/speed out of the 2.2 width. Will 2.1 > 2.2 really make a noticeable difference? Would I be better of going for 2.0? I can't seem to find many 2.1s online at all.

I ride 80% of the time on road so speed is important to me but I also want me be able to hit light off-road trails on occasion.

I want to avoid wire bead as I've heard that they are heavy and hard to put on, but ideally don't want to spend more than £20 per tyre. Any recommendations on the best makes/models for my money? I was quite happy with the Mezcals, but not sure if they are considered cheap or okayish as they are hard to find online these days.

Thanks! :)

sad_muso

Posts

  • warpcowwarpcow Posts: 1,448
    It'll probably make less of a difference than all the other variables (weight, tread, compound, carcass, etc).
  • FerralsFerrals Posts: 785
    plus one manufacturers 2.2 is another manufacturers 2.0 etc
  • OuijaOuija Posts: 1,386
    Ferrals wrote:
    plus one manufacturers 2.2 is another manufacturers 2.0 etc

    That's because the numbers stated for tyres are the HEIGHT of the tyre, not the width. Many people seem to make this error because, typically, when a tyre gets higher it also gets wider. But not always by the same amount. Tread pattern and the inclusion of puncture protection strips can make some tyres taller than they are wide so that one companies 2.2" tyre is wider than another (same height though).
  • warpcowwarpcow Posts: 1,448
    Both Conti and Schwalbe clearly state that the inch marking refers to the width of the tyre. There is an older inch system that takes into account tyre height, but almost no one uses it nowadays, and especially not for modern tyres.
  • lostboysaintlostboysaint Posts: 4,250
    Ouija wrote:
    Ferrals wrote:
    plus one manufacturers 2.2 is another manufacturers 2.0 etc

    That's because the numbers stated for tyres are the HEIGHT of the tyre, not the width. Many people seem to make this error because, typically, when a tyre gets higher it also gets wider. But not always by the same amount. Tread pattern and the inclusion of puncture protection strips can make some tyres taller than they are wide so that one companies 2.2" tyre is wider than another (same height though).

    Fail.

    The tyre measurement is width.
    Trail fun - Transition Bandit
    Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
    Allround - Cotic Solaris
  • The RookieThe Rookie Posts: 27,748
    Most (all?) MTB tyres use a 100% aspect ratio, so the dimension is actually both, though as pointed out the manufacturers themselves call it the width.

    Of course different setups (rim width and pressure) will give some variation in width for the same tyre.
  • sad_musosad_muso Posts: 16
    Thanks all. I think I'm going to give the 2.25s a go since I don't actually need speed as much as before as I've got a road bike for that now
  • njee20njee20 Posts: 9,613
    A Ralph is a very competent off road tyre, if you want something fast for occasional off road use a Thunder Burt or Furious Fred would be a more sensible purchase.
Sign In or Register to comment.