- It s an Xtracycle with external gearing. Back when the donor bike was still an actual mountain bike, the biggest tire I ever ran was a 2.10. I think, circaMessage 1 of 9 , Jan 4, 2013View SourceIt's an Xtracycle with external gearing. Back when the donor bike was still an actual mountain bike, the biggest tire I ever ran was a 2.10. I think, circa late 90s there weren't too many, if any choices for tires bigger than 2.10. Now, that being said I think there was probably room in the frame for something bigger, but it seems like there just isn't a whole heck of a lot of difference between 2.10 and 2.3-something. I'm kinda wondering, since some guys are running serious flotation rubber in the 3.0 size what fenders are they using? Do you think running the bigger tires helps any with load carrying capacity? Say, what do you think would be the advantages or disadvantages between something in the 1.9 range versus 2.1+ assuming both were quality tires?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Dannenberg wrote:
> Is this an Xtracyle or Big Dummy? Internal or external gearing? Planet Bike 29er fenders will fit the BD fine as will 2.5" tires, at least with internal (hub) gears.
> David Dannenberg
- ... Reading the Schwalbe ratings, all else equal, bigger is better. ... Big tires gets you more load carrying ability, better protection from potholes, longerMessage 2 of 9 , Jan 4, 2013View SourceOn 2013-01-04, at 8:14 PM, kiltie_celt <matthew-campbell@...> wrote:
> Do you think running the bigger tires helps any with load carrying capacity?Reading the Schwalbe ratings, all else equal, bigger is better.
> Say, what do you think would be the advantages or disadvantages between something in the 1.9 range versus 2.1+ assuming both were quality tires?Big tires gets you more load carrying ability, better protection from potholes, longer intervals between tire inflation, and the ability to drop your inflation to about 35-40psi to get a softer ride. They're less affected by slots and cracks in the road.
Disadvantages include reduced fender choice, takes all day to inflate with a hand pump, and your wheel does not fit in all "bicycle-sized" slots.
- They ride so much nicer and handle better in my opinion with a fatter tire. I have found the sweet spot to be the 2.35. I have planet bike fenders with noMessage 3 of 9 , Jan 4, 2013View SourceThey ride so much nicer and handle better in my opinion with a fatter tire. I have found the sweet spot to be the 2.35. I have planet bike fenders with no clearance issues. There is some good archived threads about tires as well.Sean
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, "kiltie_celt" <matthew-campbell@...> wrote:
So, one of the last things to do on my build is get some fenders on the ride. Right now I have some Kenda 26x1.95 but I'd like to have the ability to run slightly larger tires, say 26x2.35 or so. I don't know exactly how big of a tire I could squeeze onto my frame without worrying about chain rub issues (back tire), or front fork/V-brake clearance. A couple sets of fenders I'm looking at are SKS B60 which will take up to 2.1 size or SKS P55 which can take up to 2.3 size. Do you think there's really that much difference in terms of weight carrying capacity or whatever - any major reason why you'd choose 2.3 over 2.1 size tires? For the record, I can buy the B60s for about $30, and the P55s for $46, so only a $15 difference. I'm kinda leaning towards the P55s just so I know if I end up going up to 2.3 I'll have the room for them. Suggestions?
- David, No offense, but I strongly disagree with your opinion about big tires getting you more load capacity. I say this from my personal experience inMessage 4 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013View SourceDavid,
No offense, but I strongly disagree with your opinion about big tires
getting you more load capacity. I say this from my personal experience in
primarily riding with 1.5 tires. I have carried SO much stuff. Many
people on this list have already seen some of the photos of my loads, so
I will not bother posting links to them this time around. In the past I
always bought 26 x 1.5 Avocet Kevlar lined tires with the inverted
zig-zag tread, and I would go months with out a flat. As an extra
precaution, I would also squirt in Slime just in case. That was back when
I was working as a bike messenger in NYC. The rubber was a stiffer/harder
type in those avocet tires, so they lasted much longer. Of course, I
mainly only ride on pavement with occasional packed dirt trails.
Unfortunately for me in the last several years Avocet stopped making
these tires from what I understand. If I had to guess, the tires lasted
so long they did not make enough money off them. I was really bummed when
I stopped being able to get those tires.
I do not know if this helps put my own opinion into perspective, but I
would pump my tires anywhere between 80-110 PSI. At that pressure my
tires were solid and very responsive. I still felt my ride was
better/softer than riding on any road bike. For those especially heavy
loads, I actually much rather preferred a higher inflated tire. I
disliked feeling the bounce in lower pressure tire when hauling a big
I will not at all argue your point about better protection from potholes
when riding on bigger less-inflated tires. I just avoided pot holes,
which is sometimes difficult in NYC, but I never had a problem. I did
frequently fly off sidewalk curbs though, which I would consider harsher
on a cargo bike than a mild pot hole. I would not bunny hop off sidewalks
or anything, and I would usually only fly off them when unloaded.
Unloaded for me though is still riding with about thirty pounds on top of
the bike itself.
I am not sure what you mean by longer intervals between tire inflation.
Maybe I never had a larger tire on my bike long enough to notice a
difference in re-inflation periods. I think I tended to
inflate/re-inlfate my tires mainly when I had flats. Truthfully, many
times when I finally got around to patching or replacing my inner tubes,
sometimes I would find two or three puncture points. I am almost positive
I must have been getting flats over stretches of time, but the Slime I
put in clogged them up enough so I would only have to inflate my tires up
once every week or every other week. When I did not get flats I would
never have to re-inflate my tires to pump them up to a higher desired PSI
unless for some disturbing reason my bike was not ridden for a long
stretch of time. Of course back then that would have been NEVER as my
bike was my primary mode of transportation as well as my profession.
- ... No offense taken -- I m just working from the Schwalbe site; they include load ratings for different sizes of Big Apple, and the fatter the tire, theMessage 5 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013View SourceOn 2013-01-05, at 2:21 PM, Tone <tone@...> wrote:
> David,No offense taken -- I'm just working from the Schwalbe site; they include load ratings for different sizes of Big Apple, and the fatter the tire, the higher the rating. Here's where I got my info: http://www.schwalbetires.com/bike_tires/road_tires/big_apple
> No offense, but I strongly disagree with your opinion about big tires
> getting you more load capacity. I say this from my personal experience in
> primarily riding with 1.5” tires.
There's apparently a tradeoff between wheel strength and tire strength; my understanding is that smaller (spoked) wheels are stronger than larger ones, but larger tires appear to be stronger (carry larger loads) than smaller ones.
Back when I ran 700c, I did bottom out a 32mm (1.25") tire to the point that I rumpled the rim. Fortunately, disk brakes, and I could fix it with vise-grips, but not a really great thing to have happen.
> I am not sure what you mean by longer intervals between tire inflation.Many weeks, maybe months. I suspect that Slime would also work better in the larger, lower-pressure tires, just because of the lower pressure pushing goop through holes..