Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello,

Since tire manufacturer ratings for tires is all over the board such that some tires rated as a 2.4 will fit on the 575 which is rated for a 2.35 tire max, I was wondering which tires people have had success with as a rear tire on the 575 in terms of size. All 2.35 tires should theoretically work on the 575 as that is what the bike is rated for, so please post any tire rated bigger than a 2.35 that has worked for you.

Thanks!
 

·
Bad Case of the Mondays
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
I am running a new version of the Schwalbe Fat Albert in the 2.4 size. Big meaty tread, and it fits comfortably in the rear of my 06 frame. I do have some scratches where its picked up rocks on the side tread and scored the side of the rear triangle (glad its aluminum) but it fits well.

To be noted though is that I live in CO where its rarely muddy, so that type of clearance is not an issue for me.
 

·
Bad Case of the Mondays
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
cwang said:
Does anybody know if the max size of the rear tire changed going from the aluminum rear ends to the carbon rear ends? And thanks for the replies guys!
I believe it did change some, although I'm not sure if its bigger or smaller. I seemed to think the carbon rear triangles had slightly less clearance but were stiffer due to the brace across the seatstays.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Disco Stu said:
2.4 Rubber queen barely fits a 7----would highly doubt it fits a 575 rear.
Thanks, look like I will have to wait for the RQ 2.2. It seems to be out of stock everywhere for the non UST version. If any of you know a place that I can order Rubber Queen 2.2 non UST, let me know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Jdub said:
I believe it did change some, although I'm not sure if its bigger or smaller. I seemed to think the carbon rear triangles had slightly less clearance but were stiffer due to the brace across the seatstays.
Are you using the carbon seat stays and the aluminum chain stays or full aluminum?
 

·
Brit on a trip
Joined
·
453 Posts
I am just finishing a build taking everything off a 2005 575 onto the new type with full carbon rear.

I have been running a 2.4 Advantage on the rear for the last year. It had enough room in the old aluminium rear but there are some gouges where stones have been dragged through between stay and tyre - the carbon will be less tolerant of that.

The same wheel/tyre on the new carbon rear looks visible tighter. I think it will clear the seat stays OK but is far too tight (with very worn tread) on the arch to allow use in mud and any stones caught in the tread are really going to get rammed through the small gap. At the chainstay I can just make the tyre touch the stay by flexing the wheel - that means it will certainly buzz it at times when riding.

I will try riding it this weekend but am 90% certain I will need to swap out for a smaller tyre. Bear in mind I am talking about a well worn tyre - a new one will be much worse. The Advantage 2.4 comes up very large - as big or bigger than a minion 2.5. I will replace with a 2.2 Advantage which seems to have a similar profile to a minion or highroller 2.35.The latter will fit comfortably.
 

·
Mr. Knowitall
Joined
·
873 Posts
I tried 2,35 Muddy Mary once on my 08 carbon rear. Aborted my ride and rode carefully home. Too much rub against carbon on those. The FA 2,4 are equally large, and I would not recommend these. Even though my rear end has stiffened substansially since I upgraded to CK and Fun Bolts on my rear wheel, I went for the 2,25 FA, and it got the job done.

My 0.02$
 

·
EDR
Joined
·
10,441 Posts
I put a Fat Albert 2.35 on the rear of my Al/CF '08, briefly. It's not the width that is the problem, it's the CF brace that limits how tall a tire can be. The FA fit, but came very close to rubbing the brace so I moved it to the front.

The FA is a big tire for it's stated size, at least compared to many tires. Most tires seem to measure smaller than advertised. I've also run 2.2 and 2.3 Chunder Control 2Bliss tires on the rear, both large volume tires as well. Comparable to a Minion or High Roller 2.5 tire.
 

·
Mr. Knowitall
Joined
·
873 Posts
eatdrinkride said:
I put a Fat Albert 2.35 on the rear of my Al/CF '08, briefly. It's not the width that is the problem, it's the CF brace that limits how tall a tire can be. The FA fit, but came very close to rubbing the brace so I moved it to the front.

The FA is a big tire for it's stated size, at least compared to many tires. Most tires seem to measure smaller than advertised. I've also run 2.2 and 2.3 Chunder Control 2Bliss tires on the rear, both large volume tires as well. Comparable to a Minion or High Roller 2.5 tire.
Remember that for 2009 Fat Albert was revised with front and rear specific treads in sizes 2.25" and 2.4". For the sticky rubber season I went for Big Betty up front and a Minion DH-R 2.35" rear. That did the trick for me, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
I have been running Mountain King 2.4 and Maxxis Ardent 2.25 without any issue. Just change to a sets of Nobby Nic 2.4 yesterday, they look smaller that my old maxxis Ardent2.25.

I am using DT Swiss 4.2 rims and 2009 Yeti 575 with full carbon rear triangle.
 

·
a.k.a. Yeti Ken
Joined
·
112 Posts
Resurrecting this post.

One Eye, how does the 2.4 Nobby Nic work for you? Anyone know how much difference there is in tire capacity between the 2006 575 and current models?

I just put on a 2.4 Nobby Nic last night and am surprised at how close it comes to the chainstays. It's not rubbing, but with a little muck from late winter thaw I sure there will be some scratching to be expected (Aluminum stays). I may have to drop down to the 2.25 which will probably be close to the 2.35 max capacity due to the Schwalbe high volume.

Ken
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top