[Closed] Why didn't 3" tyres catch on in downhill?

Because they were massively heavy and draggy

Big tyres are very forgiving. If you can hit the same lines over and over again and aren't fazed by rocks and roots you don't need them. Which is why none of the DH pros use them

I've got a Nokian Gazzolodi in the shed that's never been used. It's just funny to look at.

Very heavy
Old school thin sidewalls
You only had very narrow rims to fit them to so very flexible
Any frame or fork had to be freakishly large to accommodate them

Then super tacky High Rollers came along and blew everything else out of the water anyway.

The new breed of 3"/+ tyre setups are not really comparable to the likes of Gazzos, they're probably half the weight for a start.

Yeah. As spectabilis says. modern 3" tyres are to allow slow old men with too much money and no real riding ability to ride their overpriced rigid shitehawks over uneven surfaces without ever needing to stand up or weight shift to aid grip.

Oi I resemble that remark

Everything has changed since the last time we saw 3" tyres. Tyres with their treads and compounds actually work really well now. Tubless is here and it works. The innertubes for Gazzaloddi's were massive. The DH bikes of the time were just spindly XC bikes with BMX parts stuck on. Not everyone could afford disc brakes and you couldn't fit a 3" tyre between your V-brake calipers. Massive tyres are a much more sensible option now if you want them.

I do feel like the industry is currently just trying everything it can think of. Just throwing every piece of crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. It doesn't bother me, I'll stick with my perfectly good 26" hardail, DH and DJ bikes. I won't need a new full bike until well after the water has hopefully settled.

EDIT" 10 seconds on Google images;
[img] [/img]

We all thought the DH world would reject 650b wheels, so give it time...

We all thought the DH world would reject 650b wheels,

The "DH world" wasn't given a choice. The switch was almost instant compared to the slow creep of 29ers.

helpful1 - Member
Yeah. As spectabilis says. modern 3" tyres are to allow slow old men with too much money and no real riding ability to ride their overpriced rigid shitehawks over uneven surfaces without ever needing to stand up or weight shift to aid grip.

You're gay you are.

We all thought the DH world would reject 650b wheels,
The "DH world" wasn't given a choice. The switch was almost instant compared to the slow creep of 29ers.

Who was?! I remember reading that Lapierre had completely dropped 26" in favour of 650b for their entire range in 20xx and I thought "that's brave, they'll struggle" only it's exactly what all the others (bar Spesh) did - us Luddites still riding 26" should thank our lucky stars Maxxis/Continental et al don't make bikes.

Anyway sort of back on point, I rode a 3.0 tyre once, it was just stupid, as someone else said the tubes for them were crazy enough, they came in a box that was 3x the size of a normal box, cost £15 each and weighed as much as an XC tyre, 2.7 High Rollers had stupid drag too, but they were perfect for timid middle-aged "downhillers" like me who never raced ever and just wanted to get from the top of Les Gets 2 to the bottom in one piece.

I'm not sure what kind of witchcraft they're promising but I can't see how these + type bikes are going to offer the benefits of massive tyres without killing the speed, I just hope it's not the next 650b, we get a year or two to get used to the idea before it's just 'the norm' whether we want it or not.

spectabilis - Member
You're gay you are.

Interestingly in Les Gets this week it all appears to be about 26" wheels.

I've seen more 24" wheeled bikes than 650Bs and 29ers.

I may of course have selective vision, but the shops are fully decked out in 26" tyres and spares too.

modern 3" tyres are to allow slow old men with too much money and no real riding ability to ride their overpriced rigid shitehawks over uneven surfaces without ever needing to stand up or weight shift to aid grip.

right on.
:applauds:

The day a 'plus' bike podiums in the EWS or DH world cup is the day I start taking them seriously.

Wasnt one of the Scott team running a b+ frame but with 29er wheels the other week at EWS?

Not every ride has to be about max speed. Plus size bikes are a different kind of fun to normal size bikes. Fun is good.

Wasnt one of the Scott team running a b+ frame but with 29er wheels the other week at EWS?

So... A 29er then basically?

Pretty much anything will appeal to someone these days...

Old 3" tyres were shite, no question about it, new fat and "plus" tyres might be great but are pitched at an entirely different market for entirely different purposes...

Speaking as someone who rides a 29 plus bike all the time, I'm not sure plus sized tyres are really of any great benefit on a FS trail bike, let alone a DH bike. Of course, I'm just a mincer, what do I know, my bike doesn't even have suspension. 😉

Hitting stuff too hard so will just rip them to shreds/off the rim?

+ tyres are soft / forgiving. the current cream of Dh racers ride with suspension really really really hard (Gwin especially). they dont want forgiveness (esp. Gwin), they want to straight line from the top of a lump to the top of the next lump at maximum speed.

+ / DH = Worlds apart.

arhhhhwwww, gone are the days of the blue coloured gazzas.

Which repeatedly came off the rims causing funny sliding scars on arms

spectabilis - You're gay you are.

Scotroutes - You are one letter out.

Lolz!!

Very big tyres can be a bit of a liability in soft wet conditions, I think that they make a bit more sense in lose and dusty.

If you are really hooning it around a corner like you do in DH you'd have to make the tyres mega reinforced - better to cut in than roll over.

I can certainly see the point on a rigid, maybe even on a hard-tail, but on a full-suss you already have more grip.

Basically its like adding heavy, undamped suspension on to your wheels.

I've got a pair of the big dh inner tubes suitable for 3" tyres in the garage still,I'm sure they don't weigh far off the weight of a decent tyre. I might weigh one later.

Interestingly in Les Gets this week it all appears to be about 26" wheels.

Because the punters can't switch as fast as the pros. The 26" wheel has vanished from new builds. Those stacks of spares will get smaller every year until you have to rake in a bargain bin to replace the Minion you just skidded the last knob off.

I'll be out there next year still on 26ers because I'm not swapping a top of the range, nearly new, perfectly functioning bike because my wheels are a few mill smaller.

Only time I ever saw a Gazzolodi was mounted to a big **** off wide Sun rim in a local bike shop. Wasn't even built up as a wheel just there to show what you could buy if you were stupid enough...

I remember seeing a Gazzalodi in the shop too, but never on a bike...

I expect for the pros, any additional weight would be a bad thing - I think it's a very different thing from what you might use to do an uplift day, say. If they run a tyre setup they definitely won't destroy, they won't win. If I run a tough tyre setup, I won't miss any uplifts.

I'm not about to get an anything + bike right now though.

In mm at what width does "plus" officially begin and simply a wide tyre end?

In mm at what width does "plus" officially begin and simply a wide tyre end?

Can't be bothered to convert to mm as tyre widths are in inches for MTB but I would say it is around the 2.6 mark.
Most of the wide 'normal' tyres go up to around 2.4, most of the plus tyres start at around 2.7 don't they.

So if you find a 2.55 tyre it will be have to have a whole new category invented...

Can't be bothered to convert to mm as tyre widths are in inches for MTB but I would say it is around the 2.6 mark.
Most of the wide 'normal' tyres go up to around 2.4, most of the plus tyres start at around 2.7 don't they.

I think someone measured a Schwalble 2.4 and a WTB 2.8 and they're actually the same width bead to bead. But the WTB is designed to sit on a 50mm rim. A 2.4 tyre mounted on a wide rim doesn't feel the same as a '+' tyre on the same rim. In the same way a 4" fat tyre doesn't give 4" of suspension,even at 10psi you'd struggle to deform it much more than 2" without riding into something sharp. This is why it gives the feeling of massive grip, but without feeling like suspension.

Still, makes it easy to spot those who've never riden one by satements like

Basically its like adding heavy, undamped suspension on to your wheels.

Still, makes it easy to spot those [s]who've never riden one[/s] that think they're more 'core than they are by satements like

Basically its like adding heavy, undamped suspension on to your wheels.

TBH I'm not sure that the current + size tyres have anything to do with DH racing and why anyone would think they do.

Bigger tyre will equal less suspension travel, hence why no 29er DH bikes - and B+ is only marginally smaller diameter than 29.

chakaping - Member

Bigger tyre will equal less suspension travel, hence why no 29er DH bikes

That's one reason... But tbh the lean towards harder suspension means the 200mm of travel isn't necessarily critical (I read an interview with Justin Leov's mechanic, how often did he use all the travel- never, apparently)

This is pure opinion but... If there was a 29er boxxer or 40, and a selection of 29er dh rubber, and some big hitter teams with a desire to win on a 29er dh bike, I reckon world cups would have been won on 29. But it's always meant second rate kit being played with by smaller companies. Even then you get your occasional mitch gruffalo, or gwin at sea otter. Or Graves on his enduro bike at champs.

That Spesh Big Hit above looks about 5 million times more fun to ride than a hardtail with fricking massive tyres.

I remember seeing a big hit like that at fort William in about 2007. 24" rear wheel, super monster T fork. It was unrideable. Every corner he got to, he fell off.

That Spesh Big Hit above looks about 5 million times more fun to ride than a hardtail with fricking massive tyres.

Why would I want to pedal a big hit around XC stylee?

This is pure opinion but... If there was a 29er boxxer or 40, and a selection of 29er dh rubber, and some big hitter teams with a desire to win on a 29er dh bike, I reckon world cups would have been won on 29. But it's always meant second rate kit being played with by smaller companies. Even then you get your occasional mitch gruffalo, or gwin at sea otter. Or Graves on his enduro bike at champs.

I'm not sure! The Manitou Doraro takes 29er wheels and they are regarded as good forks. There's plenty of suitable 29er DH rubber available from Maxxis and Schwalbe (etc.) and some of the big guys have/had suitable frames- Foes, specialized, Intense & Niner (?).

I supposed that if everyone wash pushing 29er for DH (and winning) too then 26''/650b would be obsolete as 29'' would cover all riding disciplines (from a marketing/racing perspective).

Why would I want to pedal a big hit around XC stylee

That Big Hit would just be shit on anything.
A hardtail with bigish tyres can be good fun.

That Spesh Big Hit above looks about 5 million times more fun to ride than a hardtail with fricking massive tyres.

The problem was, it wasn't, it was utterly ****.

They were marginal better with proper forks not Super Monster T's.

Wierd to think how niche DH was for a very long time. Spesh made the big-hit, but it was never a 'pro' bike, Giant made the ATX with 6" of travel, etc.

Of the big brands Trek had the Diesel (never actually saw one in real life), There was the DH version of the Cannondale Gemini (not quite so rare, I might have seen 1), assorted shonky Kona's, then at an NPS level it was all Orange 222, Balfa BB7 and Ancillotti bikes. Even when the big brands sat up and took notice it was all a bit weird (Trek session 10, Santa Cruz V10*, Spesh Demo 9).

*Still ploughing it's lonely 10" travel furrow.

I remember the mechanic at the LBS shop riding 3 inch Gazzalodis on Snowcat rims on his DH Cheetah.
Also ran a YZ80 fork to fit the tyres.
Don't think it made him a better rider.

Oh no, I've realised I'm not comforming to the STW freak bike club. Sorry.

I had a Big Hit of that era. First with Boxxers, then Shiver DCs and then Monster Ts. It was flippin brilliant and trucking through stuff and I had a lot of fun times riding that bike, as I reckon I would do now. If anything, it was a more capable bike than the Tomac 204 which replaced it. So in actual fact, I was comparing a bike I liked to a shit XC bike.

Would I (yes, I) have as much fun on a hardtail with 3"+ tyres? I doubt it.

I'm still not sure why people are trying to compare a bike/tyre that's designed for XC/trail to a downhill bike?
Seems a very strange comparison.
Just because it's big doesn't make it a DH product.

Edit.
I'd say that Big Hit with Monster T's is about as freak bike as you can get.

a shit XC bike

No one has mentioned any specific XC bike have they?
Are you saying all XC bikes are shit then. Just about sums up the more 'core than you crew. 😉

OP; modern + tyres have nothing whatsoever in common with shit old Nokian monster tyres that I reckon were a marketing stunt anyway.

I had one of those big hits with shiver dc forks. It was brilliant. Nothing else came close for the money. How things have changed, the frame cost £750 brand new.

Trek session 10, Santa Cruz V10*, Spesh Demo 9).

*Still ploughing it's lonely 10" travel furrow.

No it isn't. The new V10 has only 8.5 (216mm) of travel