Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Mountain Biking Mountain biking is one of the fastest growing sports in the world. Check out this forum to discuss the latest tips, tricks, gear and equipment in the world of mountain biking.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-05-05, 06:30 PM   #1
notfred
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Anyone have Panaracer Fire XC Pro 2.1" tires?

Could you do me a favor and measure the actual width of your tires? At the widest point, does it actually seem ot be 2.1", or is it narrower (or wider) than that? Thanks.
notfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-05, 10:51 PM   #2
hebrew_rider
a badass heeb on wheels
 
hebrew_rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Cruz, California
Bikes: Santa Cruz Chameleon
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
mine are so close it is hard to tell...in other words it does not matter because the difference is so small. Mabey yours are different
hebrew_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-05, 11:13 PM   #3
jeff williams
I couldn't car less.
 
jeff williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Bikes: Ritchey P-series prototype, Diamondback, Nishiki Triathelon Pro.
Posts: 4,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by notfred
Could you do me a favor and measure the actual width of your tires? At the widest point, does it actually seem ot be 2.1", or is it narrower (or wider) than that? Thanks.
2.10 is measured tire hight. Not width, that depends on the design.
Don't have that tire....or calipers.
2.10>on 26 rims fit most any mtb.

Why?

Last edited by jeff williams; 01-06-05 at 12:55 AM.
jeff williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 12:54 AM   #4
jeff williams
I couldn't car less.
 
jeff williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Bikes: Ritchey P-series prototype, Diamondback, Nishiki Triathelon Pro.
Posts: 4,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A 2.25 might have to be inflated on the bike, past the brakes before inflating?

Not a problem with 2.10.
jeff williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 01:31 AM   #5
scrublover
Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
 
scrublover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: East coast
Bikes: hardtail, squishy, fixed roadie, fixed crosser
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff williams
2.10 is measured tire hight. Not width, that depends on the design.
Don't have that tire....or calipers.
2.10>on 26 rims fit most any mtb.

Why?
huh? what are you talking about with 2.10 being the height?

that is the width.

they sit about 45mm tall, and measure right about 2" at the widest part of the tread.
scrublover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 02:03 AM   #6
[bEn]
Just Ride
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Bikes: 2005 Giant Yukon with the works.
Posts: 1,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
could u fit 2.5" tires on 26" rims?
[bEn] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 02:07 AM   #7
Raiyn
I drink your MILKSHAKE
 
Raiyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Rockhopper FSR Comp, 1999 Specialized Hardrock Comp FS, 1971 Schwinn Varsity
Posts: 15,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by x_v1p3r_x
could you fit 2.5" tires on 26" rims?
On the rims? Yes. In the frame? Depends





Let's not get lazy now.
__________________
Raiyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 02:09 AM   #8
notfred
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrublover
they sit about 45mm tall, and measure right about 2" at the widest part of the tread.
Thanks!
notfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 02:11 AM   #9
[bEn]
Just Ride
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Bikes: 2005 Giant Yukon with the works.
Posts: 1,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiyn
On the rims? Yes. In the frame? Depends





Let's not get lazy now.
yeah the frame is 19".
[bEn] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 02:13 AM   #10
Raiyn
I drink your MILKSHAKE
 
Raiyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Rockhopper FSR Comp, 1999 Specialized Hardrock Comp FS, 1971 Schwinn Varsity
Posts: 15,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by x_v1p3r_x
yeah the frame is 19".
Frame size has nothing to do with it. You need to know if it will clear the seat and chain stays.
__________________
Raiyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 02:16 AM   #11
[bEn]
Just Ride
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Bikes: 2005 Giant Yukon with the works.
Posts: 1,343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ok, cheers.
[bEn] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 06:02 AM   #12
Cornish_Rdr_UK
Withdrawal Symptoms!
 
Cornish_Rdr_UK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cornwall UK
Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc 2004 And identit Dr Jekyll
Posts: 1,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have panaracers, they're ok, nothing special though imo, pretty light, thats all they've got going for the them i reckon
Cornish_Rdr_UK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 11:02 AM   #13
stapfam
Time for a change.
 
stapfam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England
Bikes: Dale MT2000. Bianchi FS920 Kona Explosif. Giant TCR C. Boreas Ignis. Pinarello Fp Uno.
Posts: 19,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornish_Rdr_UK
I have panaracers, they're ok, nothing special though imo, pretty light, thats all they've got going for the them i reckon
Lightweight tyre that grips on soft to firm soil, works in mud, but not as good as a mud specific tyre, does not get "Gripped" by the short sheep grass that we have, hangs on in corners. I don't need anything else, Although I have found that I prefer the 1.8 to the 2.1.

On the tyre width, 2 sets on two different widths of rims. Funnily enough the two different widths of rim give two different widths of tyre. Differing by 3/16".
stapfam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 11:31 AM   #14
jeff williams
I couldn't car less.
 
jeff williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Bikes: Ritchey P-series prototype, Diamondback, Nishiki Triathelon Pro.
Posts: 4,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrublover
huh? what are you talking about with 2.10 being the height?

that is the width.

they sit about 45mm tall, and measure right about 2" at the widest part of the tread.
Hot damn..you're right.
"Bicycle tire size is expressed as the wheel diameter by the tires widest width. Therefore 26x2.0 means that the tire is 26" in diameter and 2.0" wide. Maxxis also offers 16, 20, 24, and 700c size tires in various disciplines."

http://www.maxxis.com/products/bicycle/faq.asp

How did I get mixed up? But the 2.25, 2.3, 2.5 nominal width are taller than 26 inches?
They sure lOOk taller. Maybe I can fit a 2.3 front.

The XC tires I like stop @ 2.1, currently my front (1.95 rear) I want to put 2.1 rear and 2.25-2.3 front but i've not bought the tire 'cause I thought it would be too tall, not wide. I have more width clearnce than hight.

Would a bike store return a tire that had been mounted and inflated,(not run) but didn't fit?

Last edited by jeff williams; 01-06-05 at 11:38 AM.
jeff williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 12:46 PM   #15
jayson
Yorkshire, UK
 
jayson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: York, UK
Bikes: 04 Marin Mount Vision, 04 Rock Lobster Tig Team SL
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The fire xc's are sposed to be 2.1" but they look alot narrower in my eyes, more like a 1.95 maybe. They give ok traction but the width is really not what i was expecting im afraid.
jayson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 04:59 PM   #16
TheTuNa
XC Rider
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kidderminster, England
Bikes: Santa Cruz Heckler
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've only come across the Panaracer Fire XC's in a 2.4 or am I thinking of the Freerides I dunno, they look like they've super tread on them though
TheTuNa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 05:22 PM   #17
jeff williams
I couldn't car less.
 
jeff williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Bikes: Ritchey P-series prototype, Diamondback, Nishiki Triathelon Pro.
Posts: 4,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1.8, 2.1 for Panaracer Fire XC's.

2.1 seems to be a cut off for a few companies xc tires. IRC also stops @ 2.1 for xc tread.
jeff williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 05:39 PM   #18
TheTuNa
XC Rider
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kidderminster, England
Bikes: Santa Cruz Heckler
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
At the end of the day, if you have a bike to which you're only go and XC ride, then any Tyre over 2.1 is an overkill. It'll slow you down and drag. Most of the top XC Pro's run 1.8 & 1.95
TheTuNa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 05:48 PM   #19
jeff williams
I couldn't car less.
 
jeff williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Bikes: Ritchey P-series prototype, Diamondback, Nishiki Triathelon Pro.
Posts: 4,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTuNa
At the end of the day, if you have a bike to which you're only go and XC ride, then any Tyre over 2.1 is an overkill. It'll slow you down and drag. Most of the top XC Pro's run 1.8 & 1.95
Well I want xc tread on 2.25's. Period.

It's just MY problem as I want a 2.25 dry dirt tire tread for my solid fork.
I have 1.95 rear, 2.1 front. Need to run 2.10 rear 2.25 front but IRC goes thick mud monster knob @ 2.25.

Any body seen xc (type\close) tread 2.25's ?

Last edited by jeff williams; 01-06-05 at 05:57 PM.
jeff williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 06:10 PM   #20
HDTVKSS
randomness inc.
 
HDTVKSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Bikes:
Posts: 988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
the 2.1 Fire Xc's seem to be as rare as rocking horse crap here in aus. I have run the 1.8's and was pretty happy with them. They are quite pressure sensitive and the soft compound makes them ware a lil fast, but over all they suited me fine.

At the moment im about to try GEAX , will see how they go. if they dont work out then ill be heading back down the Panaracer path i think.
HDTVKSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 08:00 PM   #21
Deanoldo
Senior Member
 
Deanoldo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, WA
Bikes: '05 Yeti 575, , 01 Cannondale SI1000, 03 Felt F65, 07 Tarmac Pro
Posts: 227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff williams
Well I want xc tread on 2.25's. Period.

It's just MY problem as I want a 2.25 dry dirt tire tread for my solid fork.
I have 1.95 rear, 2.1 front. Need to run 2.10 rear 2.25 front but IRC goes thick mud monster knob @ 2.25.

Any body seen xc (type\close) tread 2.25's ?

I'm currently running a Kenda Blue Groove 2.35 in front and a 2.1 Fire XC Pro in back. The Kenda is made out of a sticky rubber and is kind of a slow roller, but it grips roots and rocks like crazy. I like the Fire in back, but have never been too impressed with it in front. I've also run a WTB Weirwolf 2.5 on front before, it's kind of skinny for a 2.5 tire, but it rolls better than the Kenda.

Take a look at the specs page on this site: http://mtbtires.com
He has a ton of good info in there.

Dean
Deanoldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-05, 08:58 PM   #22
scrublover
Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
 
scrublover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: East coast
Bikes: hardtail, squishy, fixed roadie, fixed crosser
Posts: 3,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
IRC Trailbear comes in a 2.25" size. using one on the rear of my singlespeed; very good tire in that size.

IRC also has a tire called the Backcountry in a 2.25" size, though i've not used it.
scrublover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-12, 09:31 AM   #23
Strangelove
Newbie
 
Strangelove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mine is 26" XC Pro 2.1 folding tire and the actual diameter is a bit less than 1.9" both ways, width and heigth (height including thread), when brand new and inflated to 50 psi.
By the way, I checked many tires of different kinds from road to mountain and in all cases width was the same as height.
Strangelove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-12, 09:35 AM   #24
dminor 
Moar cowbell
 
dminor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The 509
Bikes: are awesome.
Posts: 12,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
^^ You DO realize that you are responding to a 7-year-old thread, right?
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Twain
"Don't argue with stupid people; they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
dminor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.