Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
RAKC
Joined
·
7,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
First off, 270lb Clyde on 29er ht.

More generalized question, not looking for lectures, and trying to keep this short.

Karma 1.9
Karma 2.2

Rode 1.9s first front and rear. Rear wore down a little during paved riding made it a little faster rolling. But rough ride, and front traction lacking bad under my weight.

Repeat for 2.2. Ride mellowed, great traction in corners but rolling resistance and weight was immediately noticed and thought my body was having issues till I switched back. Then back to 2.2s.

Will a fast rolling 2.2 give me the less bone rattling ride I like of my karma 2.2 (in the rear) but if choice of faster rolling is also lighter weight, will get me closer to 1.9 efficiency? Weight for this purpose: (they are iirc weights)

Karma 1.9=540g
Example replacement fast rolling 2.2 rear= 650g
Karma 2.2=780g

Example fit in sb8 or bontrager xr1, similar fast rollers.

Sorry if this has been answered, can't find it. But basics question is will staying wide but fast rolling little lighter tire bring me close to par with a 1.9 not so fast rolling but even lighter tire? Just trying to gain a better understanding of how all aspects of a tire affect pedaling effort so I can not buy 10sets of tires to find one that's what im looking for.


Sent from my Nokia Stupidphone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
Wider tires actually have LESS rolling resistance as narrower tires with all other factors being taken into consideration. This has been proven multiple times. This means they will actually roll faster. This will be even more pronounced offroad. The only advantage the narrower tire will have is rotating weight which is mostly felt under acceleration. Once up to speed the wider tire will maintain momentum better and it will take less effort to pedal (again with all other factors the same).
 

·
RAKC
Joined
·
7,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Not sure about that but..
Edit: I stand corrected, but only applies when literally all things equal except tire width.


Sent from my Nokia Stupidphone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
Not sure who said wider has less rolling resistance....sorry but do some research on laws of physics, friction to be more precise. not to mention the fact my own riding experiences say otherwise. Except under soft and loose terrain. Reason for fatbikes.

Anyway, not looking for a debate, looking for more factual based response to make sure my thoughts are on the right track.

Sent from my Nokia Stupidphone using Tapatalk
Oh boy, do some research yourself, it's called the search function...this has already been hashed out on MTBR :skep:

Here is your fact based response, enjoy

Rolling Resistance | Schwalbe North America
 

·
RAKC
Joined
·
7,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Ya tried that didn't get very far. And search function seems to have issues on my phone. No reason to be an ass about it. Even in first post I said something about issues finding info.

And thnx for the link, that's what I was looking for. Appreciated

Sent from my Nokia Stupidphone using Tapatalk
 

·
No good in rock gardens..
Joined
·
4,434 Posts
Much also depends on the surface you are riding on. A supple, larger volume tyre will conform more to rough terrain off road and not "fight against" every bump and ripple in the trail. On road, narrow, slick and hard is generally best - hence why road bike tyres are skinny and run at 100PSI and up..

I've run the Karma 2.0 and 2.2 both as a front and rear and 2.2F / 2.0R.

FYI, the 2.2 Maxxis Ikon rolls really well and gives a fairly supple ride.
 

·
RAKC
Joined
·
7,604 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
After riding today still a skeptic about wider tire rear at least, obviously wide front, but 1.9r and 2.2f helped alot, kept my cornering but bike felt "lighter" pedaling. And didn't ride half bad either. I was stuck on front and rear gotta match cause it looks weird imo but it helped alot. only thing it effected was stand and mash climbing if I hit a loose spot.

Guess facts given and how bike feels to me is going to vary a little but going to try wide but fast rolling rear and see where that gets me. Being a Clyde narrow rear means higher pressure and the small jarring hits at speed still suck, better with wide front, but still rough for the ones I hit while I'm the seat.

Sent from my Nokia Stupidphone using Tapatalk
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top