Thanks!

Thanks. Good to know the hard work is appreciated!

Hi Ian. Thanks for the mentioned equation. We verified the calculation in an experiment with different rim widths and it works. However, I can't see the mathematical logic behind. Could you give me a hint?

Beat Müller I have a carbon rims with 23mm internal rim, I have serius problems in loose terrain because I’m really “blockish”, 2.35 (rekon, ardent, etc...) in the front will be ok?, or is it too narrow for 2:35?? Thanks

@@alejandrog.c1939 good enough, mayby my comment will help someone. 25mm internal works perfectly for 2,35 Maxxis, 23mm internal should too, aspecially because Maxxis tires are a bit undersized.

Which is better, Ikon or regular Ardents?

@@CowneloAlvaroid Ardent has a better rolling, which is suitable for rear wheel and ikon on the front for better grip and controlling. I know it's a 2 year old comment, still this would be helpful to others.

No worries, thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching and glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Maxxis aspen 2.25 front and rear FTW

@@Fred_the_1996 Sounds terrifying haha. Aspens in my area are a death sentence

Thanks for watching! What would you like to see tested next?

But more data! Those last two tests a comparison don't make. Need more data points.

There is a cut-off or sweet spot. If it is too fat 3.0" for example, it becomes too slow. Need a sweet spot 2.35"?

Mmmmmm don't think they would.... They're not idiots.....

+Will Menday they will, they do it everytime

I like their videos but their tests are just stupid :D

@@hobbesthetiger7468 their tests are not tests most of the time, they are just advertisements pretty much, and they are repeating themselves over and over now, I stopped watching about a year or so ago. I think the issue with this channel is that they are still sticking to that shitload of videos per week formula which is not needed anymore as the channel is big enough, and they are struggling to put out quality/original content.

Hey man I’m from 2021. Congratulations you predicted the future!

I find your suggestion pretty worthy, but that would do good for a road bike or a road-race scenario. It wouldn't shed any conclusions on Enduro/All mountain tracks. Plus on enduro, e-bikes wouldn't give you much analysis in terms of power that we throw in.

Dhananjay Bhardwaj Well they said the tyres are made for less rolling resistance and not softening the bumps, jumps, rocks, etc. So you should know which tyre is faster, after all most of the track is flat anyways and maybe I said it in the wrong way i didnt meant road flat i meant small rocks, small roots and stuff like that where the tyre is gonna be most of the time and where you can follow a straight line but yeah then it comes to grips in corners and that chagnes stuff, true

Tony Eatinsky Totally agreed :)

Tony Eatinsky - I scrolled down to the comments to say make this suggestion, thinking I'm gonna have a really witty smart comment...oh well, haha, glad we're both thinking on a similar wave length. I hope they try this test too.

The roll down test is more consistent.

Is it because 2.35 tires have larger diameter than 2.0? Meaning less angle of attack on 2.35 than 2.0?

Dia buat perbandingan masa, keberkesanan, dan wattage.. pada pelbagai permukaan jalan.. antara sepasang 2.0 dgn sepasang 2.3.. ksimpulannya 2.3 lbh efektif dan cepat pd pelbagai permukaan jalan brbanding 2.0.. tp dr segi wattage, 2.3 effort dia lbh byk dr 2.0..

Dr segi sedap, rasanya depan 2.1dgn belakang 1.95 mmg sedap tp tidak pada semua permukaan.. ikut pngalaman sy bila masuk seksyen jalan yg agak loose mcm batu2 loose @ pasir2 loose yg libatkan climbing dan descend.. 1.95 samada belakang shj @ dua² pakai 1.95 mmg x sedap.. agak payah nk kontrol.. climbing akan spin sikit2.. berbanding dgn tayar 2.1 ke atas.. sy pernah cuba kedua2 depan belakang sama saiz 1.95 dan 2.1 & combo belakang 1.95 n 2.1 depan.. 2.1 lbh efisien.. sekadar berkongsi

I dig the RoRo's too. But they do not hold up in sharp rocky conditions. I tore off a number of side nobs and had to bin the tires. Great tires though for the right terrain. (hardpack to loose) but not loose rocks or sharp bedrock.

The ChaosEngine that would be a motorbike on a tarmac circuit

@@enricolionello9044 Nope. The area of the contact surface actually makes less diference on tarmac versus lose soil. On smooth surfaces the friction force depends on the coeficent of friction between the materials and the force perpendicular to the plain, not so much on the area of contact, but on lose soil, since there is very little friction between the materials, the friction depends more on how the tire digs in, and thus on the area of contact, since a larger area means more knobs digging in on the dirt. Just think of ice as an extreme example. The friction between rubber and ice is very low, so the tires have metal spikes to dig into the ice. Meanwhile F1 cars and GP bikes have a plain tires.

Stfu no one uses 3.0 on xc

Stfu no one uses 3.0 on xc

@@hulktruck3264 I can read, didn't need to send it twice. Also, that comment was 2 years ago. Also, STFU? Really, you are that upset about a comment on KZfaq? Wow...you need more in your life.

@@johngraham6506 Stfu no one uses 3.0 on xc

Try playing tire pressure. 25 psi front and 27psi back is a good starting point. up 2psi and down 2psi.

Several people I know run 2,0 in the rear and 2,2 up front (XC).

What about All Mountain & Enduro? Thanks...

I run 2.25 rear 2.35 front on velocity P35 rims, bike just rolls over everything

My plan is a 2.4f\2.2r on 25mm internal width - I hope they are adequate... =]

Fat tire lap was 98.4% of the skinny tire lap, faster by 1.6%. Power required for the faster lap was 3.5% greater than the slower lap. Based on this the fatter tires were less efficient.

A ratio of time to watts is not valid because time and power are inversely related. Consider if the times had been identical: by your logic the win would go to the higher wattage, which doesn't make sense.

Joe had a very silly slow speed crash when a kerb jumped out in front of him on his road bike. First one in years, apparently!

i thought the same, a 29er vs a + in the same frame, thats' what people actually want to know, not if a slightly wider tyre is better, they can do that themselves with minimal outlay compared to a new wheelset & tyres.

Hi James, you're in luck as we've done just that - 29er vs 650B+ (this was the test Seb did that Joe name dropped at the start) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rZyEgKRj26-cknU.html

what about 29+. thinking about buying a trek stache 7 29+ and I want to know how agile it feels in comparison to smaller/thinner wheels. thanks for any reponses BikeRadar

We've had a look at the Stache 9 before but we're certainly keen to explore some more tyre tests kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bc6aY62I1tWUm3k.html

BikeRadar thanks. would you say that the review and your thoughts of the stache 9 applies to the stache 7 as well?

Joe Norledge , do you know if it TPI makes a real difference?

Ikon 2.2 also feel rougher with smaller casing. I think i prefer a 2.25 minimum for varied conditions which is not an Ikon option. The 2.2 do spin up fast though and easy to hold momentum. Ikon is ideal where speed and momentum is the focus, for mostly hardpack to loose. For loose rocks (not gravel size) something more aggressive is ideal maybe like a Rekon. maybe this is where the Ikon 2.3 steps in..

I think 2.25" tires is your max for 19mm rim. It is probably very light and fun.

Experiment. Carry a pump and a pressure gauge with you and adjust on the fly. I'm running tubeless 2.2's, weigh 140lbs and have gone down to 18psi which is probably the absolute low end and probably right around 20psi will be my sweet spot. Depending on how much you weigh, if you're running tubeless, what width (wider = lower psi) and what kind of ride you prefer will dictate your preferred psi.

The general wisdom is to have grippier front than the rear. And that's it. Not everyone may agree with me, but I think that having the same front and rear just doesn't make sense. At the peak of the performance demand, namely downhill, manufacturers sometimes design different tread patterns for the front and the rear. That's because both wheels do different jobs. The idea is that while the rear can slide about and you just keep on riding, once you lose the front, you go down. Another thing is that at least 60% of your weight sits on the rear tire and that's where most of the rolling resistance comes from. So if you have the same tires at the same pressures, the rear will deform/comply with the terrain and therefore have more grip than the front simply by having more weight on it. And the last thing, what you have on the front adds very little to the real-world rolling resistance, especially when climbing. In conclusion: Front should be gripper and have less pressure. Higher rolling resistance makes very little difference. Rear should have more pressure, faster tread and less rolling resistance. Tire width is very individual thing. Some 2.4 tires are physically thinner than some 2.25 ones. But I think that most people will tell you to have a wider tire on the front simply because it seems as common sense that the wider tire has more grip. I say worry about tread and rubber above all things.

Hi Alex, what did you choose and how did it goes? I love to hear from you. I am in the middle to figure out. I am same thoughts at starting point and now I am considering Forekaster 2.35 front (735g) decent rolling speed, and Aspen 2.25 rear (650g) fast rolling speed. This is a super light weight and it should feel lively on the trail. But - I have not tried it yet. I want to hear what you tried.