Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,814 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What is it with this industry? Allmost any quoted weight or size of component is BS in the companies favor. I like Schwalbe tires, at least the 2 I've tried but the sizes arent even close. Racing Ralph; the 2.25 measures 2.1 and the 2.4 measures 2.25; I wonder what the 2.1 measeres? and those tires are mostly casing with very low knobs. The 2.35 King Jim Light is actually under 2.2 and those measurements are on a Rhino Light XL not some rode rim. They do weigh less than advertised so I guess that's something. Foes has been advertising the new FXR as a 6.5 lb 6" frame but the 2 weights posted so far are both over 8.5 lbs. TELL THE TRUTH IFYOU WANT MY $$$$$$$$$$$ I'm going to check before opening my wallet.
 

·
hands up who wants to die
Joined
·
1,405 Posts
You won't be buying many parts then... inaccurate weights are nearly universal.

I think some of the weight issues (maybe 40%) have to do with the annoying seasonal aspect of product releases. Companies are stating weights in advertising before they actually have the production version in their hands... in other words, they are basing the weights off of prototypes.
And some of them are lying for marketing/competition reasons. You can chalk that up to capitalism and a generally wealthy customer base.

As far as tire sizes go... just ignore all stated tire widths. :) Check mtbr or mtbtires.com first.

You learn to live with it... and check MTBR and other resources before you buy.

-rob in NY
 
G

·
eh... i get less burned over that than i do the crappy service that seems to be nearly universal.

i have liked my Kenda tires.

i have a silly question though, why does the physical measurement of the tires matter? i ask this question because if the tires perform well, who cares what the actual measurement is? weight is another issue, i would feel burned if i bought a tire that weighed a whole bunch more than what the advertised weight is. but in all honesty, if the tire worked awesome i would probably not be too bummed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
mechmann_mtb said:
...i have a silly question though, why does the physical measurement of the tires matter? i ask this question because if the tires perform well, who cares what the actual measurement is?
I is good to know if the tire is going to fit in your frame or fork. Some frames have very limited clearance.
It can also be disappointing to be wanting a higher volume tire and find that the 2.3 tire's casing is smaller than the 2.0 tire you have.

weight is another issue, i would feel burned if i bought a tire that weighed a whole bunch more than what the advertised weight is. but in all honesty, if the tire worked awesome i would probably not be too bummed.
Claimed weights are usually based on preproduction pieces. Some companies will quote the lightest sample, some the average weight, a (very) few the heaviest. Tires are notorious for weigh variations and there is not much that can be done about it without greatly increasing cost (which is why high-end road roads are more than $60). Plus or minus 10% is normal, +/-15-20% is not uncommon.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
Schwalbe's sizing is in line with most of the rest of the industry.

A simple "2.xx" does not tell you much with a knobby tire. Casing and tread widths vary. The Conti Twister 1.9 tread is ~1.9" and the Explorer 2.1 tread is ~2.1" but they have exactly the same size casing.

In general some companies' tires run "big" and some run "small." Almost none are the exact size marked on the sidewall. Always has been, always will be.

On claimed weights of frames: I could care less. This is the wheel/tire board.
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,439 Posts
Sizes and lies

mechmann_mtb said:
i have a silly question though, why does the physical measurement of the tires matter? i ask this question because if the tires perform well, who cares what the actual measurement is? .
Nothing worse than buying a 2.1, wanting a big casing that you can run soft, only to find a skinny little thing that pinch flats all the time unless pumped up to 45 PSI. I have been caught with Panaracer;s a few times and Panaracer made tyres under other brands (Syncros Rubber). Mind you, they DID work well, but would have been even BETTER with the bigger casing I had hoped for. I was considering some Larsen TT's in 2.0 - but I saw a set on a bike the other day - they are TINY - looked more like a 1.8 - but the side said 2.0. I would have been pissed if I had bought some.
 
G

·
i guess since i have a ton of clearance on my bike and the tires i have purchased were always well within the max size specs i didn't think the dimensional characteristics would be that big of a deal. i agree though that it would TOTALLY suck to spend 50 bucks on a tire and have it not fit in the frame cuz it was bigger than the package stated.

to be honest i don't think i would ever buy a tire without seeing one mounted up first. i am one of those people that like to pick something up and eyeball it before i purchase. i was the same way with parts for the race cars. shiggy's site is pretty thourough for dimensional characteristics and i have referred to it when researching tire options.

i do understand the process for manufacturing tires and realize the limitations inherent with meeting a specified mass. most of us regular guys/girls probably can feel the difference of heavier tires, but at the same time i am not a racer and it doesn't come down to a win/lose situation for me.
 
1 - 8 of 8 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