Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

3.0 vs 2.8 tires - Who knew?

Jump to Latest
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

OldManBiker

· Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
I began my mountain bike riding on a 29er hardtail. Primarily used only 2.1 & 2.3 tires (all tubeless).

I upgraded my bike a few months later to a 27.5+ hardtail w/3.0 tires. Loved the new feel and ride of the bike on these tires. Climbs like a billy goat and for a 53yr old, that's HUGE! lol. Not concerned about speed but, these tires were still legit fast in their own right. This upgrade increased my riding exponentially.

The past 2 days I've been Demo'ing my first ever FS (27.5) bike that is equipped with 2.8 tires. I've ran over everything I could find except for the turtle crossing. I really wasn't expecting to see, feel or experience anything in regards to the tires. I was really wanting to get a feel for the FS that I've been hearing SO much about every time I go ride!

LITTLE DID I KNOW just how much I would be blown away by these 2.8 tires. I honestly thought I wouldn't even notice them as they are so close in size AND both Plus tires, right? Wrong. It's like they have multiple personalities but at the right time on the trail. Whenever I was on flat ground or descending it seemed like the 29er came out in the tires and found another gear. And whenever I climbed the 29er "feel" would let me know they were there but, the 3.0 side would kick in and climb some technical parts like they were nothing.

Before I took the demo bike out I had already told my LBS buddy that if I bought the bike I'm sure I'd be changing the tires to 3.0's. He laughed when I called him today after riding and told him that I was taking the bike, and leaving the 2.8 tires on it!

Am I the only one who has experienced anything similar to this or does anyone else have a similar experience to this?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#2 ·
OldManBiker said:
Am I the only one who has experienced anything similar to this or does anyone else have a similar experience to this?
Click to expand...
I started mountain bikes when *gasp* NO suspension was the norm. I think 1.95" tires were common then. Over the next decade they slowly climbed to an average of 2.1" or so. More recently say 2 years ago I'd say 2.25-2.35" became fairly common, plus bikes were not around, and fatties were less common.

I'm looking to replace my 14 year old SC blur, and have been riding quite a few tires and I have to say based on my test rides that the 2.8" seems to simultaneously have a pretty big advantage of the normal 2.25-2.35" inch tires and yet not as heavy/dead as the 3.0 inch tires I'd ridden. Sure it's hard to separate out all the differences between bikes (especially when you don't own them.) Tire pressure seems much more important on the larger tires than the smaller.

Granted it does seem like in the reviews and talking to other rides that the most fun 2.8" tires have a durability problem. Sure they feel great, but at the light weights they aren't as durable. If you are looking for a tire that lasts at least a season you might well end up with a noticeably heavy/dead tire.

It does make me wonder if below the "+" sizes of 2.8-3.0 and above the normal 2.1-2.35" tires there's a sweet spot in the 2.5-2.6" range. Awesome traction (more than 2.35") less weight than 2.8, and hopefully more durability.

Unfortunately 2.6" is tough these days, you generally have to run a smaller tire than intended on a plus bike, which drops the bottom bracket. Or maybe squeak by with a 2.45 or 2.5 " tire on the more downhill side of the enduro/all mountain spectrum.
 
#5 ·
OldManBiker said:
I began my mountain bike riding on a 29er hardtail. Primarily used only 2.1 & 2.3 tires (all tubeless).

I upgraded my bike a few months later to a 27.5+ hardtail w/3.0 tires. Loved the new feel and ride of the bike on these tires. Climbs like a billy goat and for a 53yr old, that's HUGE! lol. Not concerned about speed but, these tires were still legit fast in their own right. This upgrade increased my riding exponentially.

The past 2 days I've been Demo'ing my first ever FS (27.5) bike that is equipped with 2.8 tires. I've ran over everything I could find except for the turtle crossing. I really wasn't expecting to see, feel or experience anything in regards to the tires. I was really wanting to get a feel for the FS that I've been hearing SO much about every time I go ride!

LITTLE DID I KNOW just how much I would be blown away by these 2.8 tires. I honestly thought I wouldn't even notice them as they are so close in size AND both Plus tires, right? Wrong. It's like they have multiple personalities but at the right time on the trail. Whenever I was on flat ground or descending it seemed like the 29er came out in the tires and found another gear. And whenever I climbed the 29er "feel" would let me know they were there but, the 3.0 side would kick in and climb some technical parts like they were nothing.

Before I took the demo bike out I had already told my LBS buddy that if I bought the bike I'm sure I'd be changing the tires to 3.0's. He laughed when I called him today after riding and told him that I was taking the bike, and leaving the 2.8 tires on it!

Am I the only one who has experienced anything similar to this or does anyone else have a similar experience to this?
Click to expand...
Advantages of big tires are not a new thing at all. Nokian Gazzaloddi 3.0 tires were almost the normal thing to have on the DH/FR scene in 2000 ish.

Funny, I just ran across an old Santa Cruz Super 8, complete with 3.0 Gazzaloddi (26 front, 24 rear), Monster T, Hayes Purple brakes.....was a fricken pimp bike in its time. First thing that grabbed my attention was the tires out of the pickup box - oh look plus size tires, but no, I recognize that tread pattern from 15 years ago...........
 
#8 ·
The tread pattern and fresh rubber can possibly be the difference you are feeling. There are other variables as well such as tire pressure, rim, and full suspension, but also the size marking on the tire is not exact. My 29 + bike has 29 x 3" Bontrager Chupacabra tires. They measure 2.9 inches wide at the casing on rims that have a 40mm internal width.

Your 2.8 tires may measure more or less than 2.8 wide at the casing and more or less at the tread width, depending on the tire you have.
 
#17 · (Edited)
With my short experience on Rekon 2.8, compared to a 27.5x2.3 DHRII, I much prefer the DHR2 in all scenarios. 2.3 DHR2 seems to respond more to my liking vs large impacts (rolling over large rocks), doesn't get hung up in V-ditches that match the wheel size, and has more confidence in corners. The Rekon gives slip warning on hardpack much sooner, in flat corners--45 degrees is as sharp as it lets me turn. It needs at least a full bike length of turning space to make a 90d turn at 10+mph, while the DHR2 can do it in almost half the space. I had the tire from 10-16 psi, from feeling uncomfortably squirmy and burp prone to rough riding firmness. I like the front around 13 psi, and run the rear at 14.5, expecting it to burp anyways. Plus tires just lack the more instantaneous bump response that I'm used to, but they mute more of the tiny trail surface irregularities.

I believe the narrower tires are nicer for riding fast on groomed well compacted trails, and plus is nicer for cruising, and plowing through not so well traveled routes. They roll no better or worse. I still believe bigger diameter wheels are better, at least up front. I'm intrigued with the idea of 29 or 29+ with a smaller wheel out back...
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#19 ·
Theres a huge problem with these kinds of discussions. Each person has their preference/opinion but none say where or how they ride.

As well as tires may be marked as 2.6,2.8,3.0 but in many cases they are narrower especially at the tread where it counts.

So you end up with ballooned tires and wonder why the suck.

Hard for anyone to say something is way worse, better, sweet spot for it to apply to others without having ridden about every tire and size of such.

Hell for me Ive ridden 1.9s on up to fat bike now. Anything less than 2.8 is for road bikes in my opinion. Im not trying to podium xc races or anything. Traction and compliance are what I care about. And since I dont have to deal with tons of loose rocks on fast corners there is no need to nobby nics or dhf etc.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
About this Discussion
18 Replies
15 Participants
Last post:
RAKC Ind
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion