For anyone who still has a BRR Vote - the Kenda Booster is currently in a “Losing” position for this month and will fall off if it doesn’t catch back up. Throw it a vote if you have one!
7 Likes
Factory team has been running some Ralph/Ralph combos
2 Likes
In terms of grip, I guess the Rick is below the Ray/Ralph but above the Burt.
Once we start to dry out in my area, I will try the Rick front and Burt rear combo assuming BRR comes back with a decent evaluation.
I ran Rick/Burt for a 75 miler in Fort Ord last month. the only places it was sketchy were the places where EVERY TIRE was sketchy. Sand washes in down hill turns.
Ran them on a 50 mile route last weekend that had a lot more rocks/roots, then a long downhill with leaves over the trail. zero issues from Rick.
It is a great dry conditions tire.
4 Likes
I’ve got a few hundred miles on my Rick XC 2.4" SuperGrounds on my Epic Evo. My initial impression was a bit underwhelming… In retrospect, this could have been partially due to the fact the tire I pulled off that bike were arguably some of the most grip heavy tires out there, in the Wicked Will’s which I ran for CTR. It took a few rides on the Rick to get the pressure right, and get a feel for them. They’re a pretty great all-rounder. To my feel, they definitely require a lower pressure than other tires I’ve ran. I don’t run inserts, and have never “snake bitten” a tire, and I’m also fairly light at around 150lbs. I’ve landed on 15.5f and 16 rear for my local loops, and will likely try a psi lower down the road. For the time being, I’d rate this right up there with the RaceKing, and would feel comfortable with either, although that extra few millimeters of volume does make the Rick very appealing for anything but the fastest/mildest of conditions.
2 Likes
Copied from MTBR:
YMMV…
5 Likes
Right on! I went ahead and ordered two for a pretty good deal from world wide. If they come in time and it’s not wet, I might run them front and back for my next race. I’m about 5lbs heavier and typically use about 17f - 19r.
If this turns out to be true and the weight remains competitive, Conti will probably sell me 6, maybe 8 tires in one go. Sweet Jesus.
I have a 25mm wide rim and next year want to grab the new Vittoria Peyote tires. Should I get the 2.4 version or the 2.25? I’ve been pondering this for too long lol I need some direction
My bike is a hardtail epic so I want as much plushness as I can get, which makes me want the 2.4. Also it is a low tread tire and the extra width and volume theoretically leads to better grip, which you are in high need of. But then I see a lot of people saying 2.4 doesn’t work well on a 25mm rim. Would 2.25’s actually be better than a 2.4 with the 25mm rims?
I’d go with the 2.4. I’ve tried the Peyote on an ENVE M525, which is 25 ID, and had no issues. I was pretty surprised how much traction the Peyote had.
1 Like
Well you’ve alleviated all my worries. I’m excited to try them.
From my experience, 30mm rims for 2.4 tires help a little bit by providing a little extra volume and tire support at low pressures but it’s quite marginal. 25mm will not be an issue
1 Like
Just thinking this through: Wider rims should provide no extra volume. They’re not stretching the tire by any perceptible amount, they’re just changing the profile of the inflated tire. By having the beads expand wider, the tread isn’t going to bulge as much so you’re going to get marginally more support, and less compliance.
A tire total air volume is the result of an extrusion of it’s section area. Now think about the geometry of that section area cut of the tire+rim. It’s a polygon, and a good enough approximated way to think about it is something like a pentagon.
The tire is the 4 topmost sides of the pentagon, the rim width (the variable here) is the bottom side. For any given pentagon, considering that the topmost 4 sides stay constant (the tire), if you increase the bottom side (the rim) you increase the area. Extrude it and you end up with an increased volume
5 Likes
Except that the topmost sides don’t stay constant. By expanding the IW, you are decreasing the sidewall height. You’re assuming the other variables stay constant when they don’t.
1 Like
You’re not decreasing the sidewall height. That would be the case is the rim was wider than the nominal tire width, but this is not the case for MTB tires, where the nominal tire width is much wider than the rim.
A while ago when BRR did a test comparing different rim widths, they measured the same tires in various rim widths. The effect I’m describing is visible there :
Simple math - it’s not more volume, it’s more surface area in contact with the ground and a wider contact patch (and less vertical compliance) - which also changes the ideal air pressure dynamics. You’re not changing the amount of material in the tire, you’re not stretching the tire. While it’s not a rectangle you can think of it that way - If you increase the base dimension(s), you decrease the side dimensions to keep the total circumference the same.
If there’s something else going on here that leads to an increase in volume, I’m all ears. But, it’s not the way it’s being explained here, and just because BRR says “More Volume” doesn’t make it right, especially when they’re known for running some wanky high pressures in some scenarios (like, all MTB width tires)
Personally - I think it’s the tire design, primarily compound and tread / sidewall casings that drives the ideal rim width and will result in the “Best” rolling resistance because you’re changing the profile of what’s in contact with the ground.
1 Like
You’re not increasing the volume because you “stretching the tire”, you increase it because you increase one of the sides of the polygon formed by the tire+rim system. This is simple math indeed.
What I’m describing is well known in the bike industry, not exactly rocket science, but maybe I’m failing at explaining it clearly enough. As for the BRR link, I don’t care about what they say, you can simply read the tire measurements (height and width) on different rims and take your own conclusions.
This will anyway be my last post on the topic, I tried my best to explain it. Feel free to do a Google search on the topic
3 Likes
And in increasing one of the sides, you also decrease others. Your argument says you are changing total circumference of the tire.
You are certainly explaining it poorly and haven’t said anything that changes that.
Here’s the “something else” what I think happens:
You increase the base (rim) dimension, you increase the tread dimension, you decrease the sidewall height (vertical compliance of the tire). You’re probably getting a small total “circumference” gain purely because of the extra rim measurement, but the tire outer dimension itself (the other sides) stays the same. Any volume change wouldn’t be related to the tire, just the extra rim width (“rim volume”).
Now it would be curious to see if anyone’s actually measured or calculated it, other than a lot of the incorrect assumptions out there.
(Edit - reading what I wrote above, I think I worded it poorly too. You are not changing tire measurement and you are decreasing sidewall height when you increase the rim width and tread width so those variables are changing, but you’re adding more base measurement purely from the rim. I think the “volume” argument is overstated and while it’s cited EVERYWHERE, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the impact actually calculated or measured. I think the bigger issue at play is what you’re looking for from the tire)
1 Like
Getting back to a rim width “experience” take. The latest rage is definitely wider is better, but I think it depends on the specific ride quality that you’re looking for more. While I have a 30mm IW everyday wheelset, I’ve been running 25mm IW rims on my race wheels, and feel like the extra vertical compliance (at the expense of more sidewall, taller tire, and a little more “squirrely”) helps on rougher courses and faster descents where you’re dealing with puncture risk. But, that works for me because I’m not pushing the cornering limits of the tire like some do, so the cornering performance isn’t the deciding factor for me.
I do think going too wide can be a problem (e.g. new Zipp 32mm gravel wheels and all the flats) - but not remotely an issue when we’re talking about 2.2-2.5 XC tires and 25/30mm XC rims.
1 Like