2.3" vs. 2.1" tires?

[emily_in_nc]

A couple of you mentioned liking a particular Conti 2.3" tires on your mtb. I can't remember the exact tire model now, but when I looked it up, I discovered it was tubeless. I want to stick with a tire with a tube since that's what I'm used to, so does anyone have a recommendation for a great trail tire in the 2.3" width that takes a tube?

I confirmed that my rims (Mavic 717) can handle up to 2.3" tires, so I'd like to know a little more about the advantages of these tires. I didn't even know there was such a thing -- I thought 2.1" was it. By the way, my current tires are IRC Mythos XC.

I can imagine that the down side of the 2.3" tires is weight, so what is the up side? More stability? Better cornering?

Thanks in advance, oh experienced mtb gals!

Emily

[SadieKate]

You need to go to the manufacturer's web sites to do your research. Many tires come in both tubed and tubeless versions, as does the Conti Vertical. It is the same tread as the Explorer but in a 2.3 width. Yes, wider tires are heavier than 2.1 but offer so many advantages you will never notice the difference. Just compare the weights and patterns of various 2.3 tires. Trust us on this one. I can't tell you the number of really, really, good riders that will say "get the widest and lightest tire for your terrain." You will not regret it.

http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/de/en/continental/bicycle/themes/tires/mtb/vertical/vertical_en.html

Better traction and handling versus a few more grams? You'd rather slip, slide and fall down more for the sake of a few grams? :p

PS - I use the ProTection versison because foldable tires are lighter. And it's really not the rim you need to check for the width, it is the clearance on your bike. However, I use these tires on a XS 2005(?) Racer X so you should be OK.

[emily_in_nc]

Thank you SadieKate! I look forward to doing some research (tho probably very little time until after Thanksgiving) on this. It definitely sounds like the 2.3" tires are the way to go. As long as I can still lift my bike into the back of my Element, I'm good to go!

Emily

[spokewench]

Sorry, can't help you here. I come from a mountain bike racing background so I like to run narrower tires. It is what I got used to and so I still run them. I like the fact that I climb better on the narrower tire and that is my strength anyway. I am not that great at downhill so my speeds do not increase that much when I am not slipping as much. I gain more on the uphill than I ever will on the downhill. (Just too much of a wimp!)

[fatbottomedgurl]

Hey Em! Panaracer makes a 2.3 in their Fire XC Pro. Some of my friends run them up front.but I think they are mainly for traction in loose dry conditions. There can be a real clearance issue if you get mud in the treads!

Hey I have been able to ride a bit w/o my back hurting too bad, so I guess I'm getting better. It's been almost a year since my car accident! I should be good for spring riding.

[DirtDiva]

Those Panaracers are pretty good for most conditions, actually. Very popular in the UK. They do really well in damp, gritty conditions, in my experience. Thick, gloopy mud is a bit beyond them (but that's beyond almost all tyres) and they're a bit slow on the really dry hardpack, but they're sweet for everything in-between. :)

[madisongrrl]

Thank you SadieKate! I look forward to doing some research (tho probably very little time until after Thanksgiving) on this. It definitely sounds like the 2.3" tires are the way to go. As long as I can still lift my bike into the back of my Element, I'm good to go!

Emily

Make sure your rims can accomodate a 2.3" tire....

http://www.biketiresdirect.com/infopages/Tire_Width.asp?tn=0

[madisongrrl]

Make sure your rims can accomodate a 2.3" tire....

http://www.biketiresdirect.com/infopages/Tire_Width.asp?tn=0

Forget it.....you already know that it will work. My bad.

[emily_in_nc]

Hey Em! Panaracer makes a 2.3 in their Fire XC Pro. Some of my friends run them up front.but I think they are mainly for traction in loose dry conditions. There can be a real clearance issue if you get mud in the treads!

Actually, that would be perfect for me. If next summer/fall are as dry as we had here last year in NC, all I'll be riding in is dry, dusty, loose conditions. That's why I was thinking about the 2.3" tire option, for the additional traction. I avoid riding in rain and mud as I just don't care for it, and it doesn't rain in NC much anymore anyway! :( Thanks for the tip about the Panaracers. When springtime riding starts back up (I take a riding break in the winter and hike, ride the indoor trainer, and run instead), I'll look into them.


Hey I have been able to ride a bit w/o my back hurting too bad, so I guess I'm getting better. It's been almost a year since my car accident! I should be good for spring riding.

Oh, that's great. I still get a bit of hip pain from time to time when I ride (from my April 2005 road bike accident), but it's not bad enough to keep me off the bike -- though I stick to shorter rides now. I know what a maniac you are about MTBing, so am very glad to hear that you've been able to get back on your beautiful bike! :)

Happy New Year -- I've been away from TE for awhile due to busy-ness with the holidays and our sailboat, but I'm finally getting around to checking in!

Emily

[emily_in_nc]

Those Panaracers are pretty good for most conditions, actually. Very popular in the UK. They do really well in damp, gritty conditions, in my experience. Thick, gloopy mud is a bit beyond them (but that's beyond almost all tyres) and they're a bit slow on the really dry hardpack, but they're sweet for everything in-between. :)

Actually, being a bit slow would be a plus. The gal I MTB with is a little slower than me as she rides a much heavier bike, so slowing me down just a bit would actually work out okay. ;)

Emily