FBinNY 

This is a nice generalization from someone who (I suspect) doesn't race. The fact is that there downsides, including the need to go to larger brake calipers which don't perform as well.

While adding "vast" may negate the truth here, I agree that most cyclists don't need or benefit from very narrow tires, but a large segment of this majority don't suffer either. I ride tubulars and have for 50 years. They're 25mm wide and I've used the same type from the beginning, including for sport and multi-week touring and until fairly recently, for getting around town. Road conditions run from smooth blacktop all the way down to paved roads in miserable condition and packed dirt and gravel. I've also ridden single track, and can do just about anything short of singletrack. BTW- in case you're thinking I'm a feather weight, I haven't weighed less than 175#s for 40+ years.

So, while I've never been a fan of ultra narrow tires, even when they were very trendy, I likewise am not a true believer that wider is magically better either. For road use, most people are very well served with tires between 23 and 28mm or so, and it's no accident that a century of evolution brought road tires into this range.

Wildwing

*** UPDATE ON MY RIDLEY FENIX ISSUE ***

So, as I mentioned in my previous post: I have the same issue with my Ridley Fenix. Purchased it brand new from Competitive Cyclist back in May of this year. I installed Reynolds Assault SLG clinchers and the Conti GP4000S II tires (700 X 25) and am seeing this clearance issue as well...

So, about a week and a half ago, I contacted my LBS sent them several hi-res photos of the frame anomaly and they filed a warranty claim with Ridley. Today I received word back from them that Ridley is honoring my warranty claim. I would assume from this that they are aware of the problem, but I don't think we'll ever know that for sure. Anyway the new frame will be shipped to me by mid-November. I know, I know, I have to wait 6 weeks, but I'm glad that Ridley has done the right thing and replaced the frame.

So, for those of you who have this issue, I highly recommend taking several, hi-res photos of the issue, and contact your Ridley dealer and have them file a claim.

DON'T WASTE ANYMORE TIME SETTLING WITH A FRAME THAT ONLY ALLOWS YOU TO RUN 23mm TIRES.

NJgreyhead

Never mind.

Scarbo

I put a 28mm tire on one of my bikes for the first time today and found that there was only 1mm clearance at the fork crown. It doesn't rub when I spin the wheel or when I rode it briefly today (didn't find them to be that much more comfortable than 23s). I think that I'm just going back to 23mm on this bike. Not a damned thing wrong with that.

It strikes me that the tire manufacturers are really raking in the bucks from this latest fat tire trend. I'm not saying it isn't a worthy trend; but it seems everybody just has to have fat tires now. So far, I don't really know enough to say whether or not I'll just stick with 23mm tires. This remains to be seen.

drlogik 

If you can't adjust the rear dropout to move the axle back any more I would absolutely take it back. That is not enough tire clearance in my opinion for a safe ride. Granted that some 25c's may be a bit larger than others but that's ridicules. A bike that cannot accept a 25c tire is not acceptable in my opinion...I don't care who makes it.

My old 1987 Pinarello can only take a 25c tire but it at least has triple the clearance your bike has. I could "squeeze" a 27c on my Pinarello but it would make it unsafe. If a tire hits a stone or rock and develops a bulge, that bulge could cause a bad wreck in my opinion.


-