You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just fitted a 2.8" WTB Ranger and Vigilante to WTB rims with recommended width for the tyres and the Ranger comes in at 2.5", the Vigilante at 2.6". The Ranger doesn't look very "plus". Which tyre brands under- or over-state (short answer = probably all of them)?
Does it not depend where you actually measure the width. Is it pumped up to 5psi or 55psi. Also is it across the tread bit or the total width, which would perhaps include a bit of bulge ?
"(short answer = probably all of them)"
This. A lot of tyres get a bit bigger after being inflated and ridden. And rim width matters. And whether you measure the knobs or carcass.
This is the answer: http://www.reifenbreiten-datenbank.de/
Measurements from real people!
This is a very very old complaint. WTB are generally far better at being close to advertised width in my experience than many, but it all depends on specifics.
Generally the Rangers are reported at 68mm on 35mm rims, which is a shade under 2.7”. No one pretends they’re a high volume tyre though, and they are often chosen specifically for situations where there’s limited space like trying to cram a plus into a 29er that was never intended for one.
could it be that plus tyres are actually rubbish and manufacturers are selling more what you actually need?
a prober robust plus tyre must be hugely heavy? 'mis-labelling' saves weight! and you get a more sensible tyre
According to Wikipedia, ISO standard is to measure tyre width at the carcass, ignoring the tread, on a rim of internal width 55% of the tyre width.
@vanhalen, ok so you don’t like plus.
Plenty of threads over the years criticising Maxxis and everyone else for tyres that didn’t appear to inflate to anything like their advertised width. This isn’t a thing tied to any one wheel size or format. It’s just a general thing and there are as many answers as you have time for ranging from ‘marketing bollocks’ to practical install effects and measuring standards etc.
It can help to look at the ETRTO numbers rather than the marketing led '2.6' size they write on them.
The 2.8 Ranger is 67-584, the 2.6 Vigilante is 65-584 so based on that I wouldn't expect the Ranger to be much different to the Vigilante.
Keith Bontrager did try to pioneer a new way of measuring, back in the last century - listing the carcass width on a rim, and the edge to edge of the widest knobbles - so you'd have 48/53 and so on. Seemed a good idea at the time, but everyone was confused and insisted on decimals of imperial inches instead, like 2.35in, because that's not confusing at all 🙂
It can vary even within the range of a manufacturer. I've a set of 650b+ wheels for the Solaris with a WTB Bridger 3.0" on the front and a 2.8" Trailblazer on the back. The Bridger is a genuine 3" tyre whereas the Trailblazer comes up at a measly 2.4". Not that much of a problem as it's pretty tight in there as it is.
Usually I use the Bontrager XR series and they come up within a mm or so of their stated width. I'm not quibbling about that.
So long as a 2.4" tyre is wider than a 2.2" one, it doesn't really matter.
@chipps - on the US fat bike sites they do measure carcase width from bead to bead, seemingly it gives a more reliable indication of true size than relying on particular rim widths, pressures, temperature and whether the tyre has been ridden or not.
Tyre pressure when measured was 18psi in the Ranger and 14 in the Vigi. Used a vernier gauge across the widest part of the side wall, not the knobs.
It's not just brands, it can be model specific.
For example, Continental 700x28 road tyres...
4 Seasons measure ~29mm
GP4000S IIs ~31mm
GP5000 apparently ~29mm