Jim311
12-21-03, 12:18 PM
I heard somebody say that their 2.3 is actually closer to a 2.1. Can anybody confirm this?
Mountain Biking - Is it true that Continental tires run narrow?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : Is it true that Continental tires run narrow?
riderx
12-21-03, 04:29 PM
Well, depend on which model.
I've got a Conti 2.3 Survival Pro that measures actual. I also got a Conti 2.3 Explorer that measured 2.1.
No idea why.
I've got a Conti 2.3 Survival Pro that measures actual. I also got a Conti 2.3 Explorer that measured 2.1.
No idea why.
rockstar
12-21-03, 08:58 PM
conti vertical 2.3 is a TRUE 2.1 confirmed
jekyllrider
12-22-03, 11:22 PM
On a WTB speed disc rim (24mm) and my tape measure, 2.0" casing and 2.25" at the widest knobs.
Jim311
12-23-03, 07:35 AM
Hmm...
jekyllrider
12-23-03, 08:34 AM
Hmm...
Which gives me 1/8 inch clearance on the chain stays and 3/16 on the seat stays on my F500 cad2 frame.
Which gives me 1/8 inch clearance on the chain stays and 3/16 on the seat stays on my F500 cad2 frame.
Jim311
12-23-03, 08:40 AM
Yeah, that's what I was concerned about. I'd even like to run a 2.5 but I'm sure I can't get away with that :o
rancid_chicken
12-23-03, 09:35 PM
The new Cannondale frames give you the ability to run bigger tyres. My 1fg and F600 frame both came with extra wide rear stays to be able to do that.
Jim311
12-23-03, 10:57 PM
Might be time to upgrade my frame soon then, because I'd love to be able to run some 2.5 Weirwolfs.
:)
:)
crashing_sux
01-09-04, 12:34 AM
That's one of those annoying things tire manufacturers do. They all know how to measure a tire, they just tweak the numbers to make their tire look good to their intended buyers.
If the tire is meant to be lightweight then the company might take a 1.9 and call it a 2.1, then everyone will look at the weight and be amazed it's so much lighter than the competition, until they buy it and find out it's also narrower.
Alternatively if a tire is supposed to have amazing grip the manufacturer might take a 2.3 and call it a 2.1, then people will ride it and say how much better it grips than other 2.1's ignoring the fact that it's really a wider tire.
Too bad I can't think of any manufacturers that don't play this game.
If the tire is meant to be lightweight then the company might take a 1.9 and call it a 2.1, then everyone will look at the weight and be amazed it's so much lighter than the competition, until they buy it and find out it's also narrower.
Alternatively if a tire is supposed to have amazing grip the manufacturer might take a 2.3 and call it a 2.1, then people will ride it and say how much better it grips than other 2.1's ignoring the fact that it's really a wider tire.
Too bad I can't think of any manufacturers that don't play this game.
Raiyn
01-12-04, 10:03 PM
I heard somebody say that their 2.3 is actually closer to a 2.1. Can anybody confirm this?
Yes Conti's do run narrow, but damn they're nice to work with.
Yes Conti's do run narrow, but damn they're nice to work with.
Jim311
01-13-04, 09:31 AM
I was thinking some Conti Vertical Pros or Explorers
Dunno tho.. my bikes frame clears a 2.1 with only a little room to spare, but I hate 2.1s that are actually 1.8s and whatnot. I want a TRUE 2.1 for a change!
Dunno tho.. my bikes frame clears a 2.1 with only a little room to spare, but I hate 2.1s that are actually 1.8s and whatnot. I want a TRUE 2.1 for a change!
stapfam
01-13-04, 01:03 PM
Dont worry about what size is on the tyre. Do you have enough clearance to run a wide tyre in any case? Then do you have the legs to run a wide tyre,at low pressures for many miles?
I only do XC and have found that the best tyre for me is a narrow 1.95, or a 1.8. OK, I only weigh 11 stone and have a comfy saddle, so don't need or want a wide tyre that drags on sheep grass, but neither do the others in my riding group and some weigh a lot more than me.
Incidentally, the conti premolar 2.125's that came on my tandem are correct on size. On the solo I have a range of tyres collected over the years, and find that a wider tyre, that I have to run at lower pressures, does not feel as stable as a narrow one.
I only do XC and have found that the best tyre for me is a narrow 1.95, or a 1.8. OK, I only weigh 11 stone and have a comfy saddle, so don't need or want a wide tyre that drags on sheep grass, but neither do the others in my riding group and some weigh a lot more than me.
Incidentally, the conti premolar 2.125's that came on my tandem are correct on size. On the solo I have a range of tyres collected over the years, and find that a wider tyre, that I have to run at lower pressures, does not feel as stable as a narrow one.
jekyllrider
01-13-04, 07:22 PM
How well do you get along with your LBS? I wanted to put some 2.4 Panaracer Freerides on my Jekyll for a Downieville trip, and he let me go try it on in the parking lot. The tire fit fine on the front (Fox Float RLC) but rubbed on the back-could hardly spin the wheel. Anyhow, you might see if they will let you try one on and see if there is enough clearance for you.
Jim311
01-13-04, 07:32 PM
A 2.4 doesn't fit your Jekyll? Mine looked like it would fit a 2.5 easily. Wierd.
SamDaBikinMan
01-13-04, 07:39 PM
Yes, they are European tires, if they were American they would be fat as the day is long...;)
jekyllrider
01-13-04, 09:47 PM
I think it is the result of the same claimed vs actual size dilemma you are having. The side knobs on the Panaracer FR hang way out there. My jekyll is an '00 model with the disc specific swingarm. I don't know if there were changes in clearance since then or not. I settled on Nokian NBX 2.3's for the trip. Here's one of the pics.