Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Heres my beef,why would cannondale design the rz with such tight rear tire clearance ??
Well,theres no need to rant because the overall design of the rz is pretty good,outside of the clearance issues and why didnt they make the med. in a 17.5 (the old standard med seat tube lenght) and slope the top tube for more clearance ???
So,I mounted a ardent 2.4 and the clearance is very tight,please pass on a few other tires that are bit smaller then the 2.4 ardents.I want to stay with a 2.30 plus high volume tire if possible.
Also has anyone tried a 2.4 advantage,or nevagals 2.35 as they look to be a bit smaller.
 

Attachments

· Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 · (Edited)
I may have answered my own question,just picked up a fat albert 2.4 and the clearance looks pretty good.Before I put some miles on the fat albert Id like to hear some reviews (as i can return it,if i dont use it)...please post a review on the fat albert 2.4 and pass on what a.m. tires that your running on your rz or rize
 

Attachments

· Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
I wouldn't run a tire that has less than a 1/4" or so of clearance to the frame on either side. Otherwise with flexing or the potential of a broken spoke, you could really cut into the frame before you relize it!

I currently have a tire that measure 2.25" wide and I don't think I would go wider on my Rize 140.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
I tried to put Continental Rubber Queen 2.4 UST on the rear of my rz 140. Side clearance was good, but triangle bridge clearance to top of the tire was about 2mm - not good at all, so I've switched to Conti Trail King(rebranded RQ) 2.2".
 
1 - 7 of 7 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