[Closed] Wider Tyres are faster

The difficulty is that manufacturers want a low "catalogue weight" so have traditionally made plus tyres too thin to get the weight down.

Really solid bit of testing there though. As many have said over the years, Seb Stott is one of the best in the business.

Yeah they're faster, but they're much much more puncture prone, 2.8 and 3.0 are going out of fashion and you don't see them on EWS as a puncture means race over, they would have to be massively heavy to have the same puncture resistance as a smaller tyre.

2.6 is a good compromise, not quite the best of both but still faster and grippier than a 2.2/2.3.

Racing-wise, flat tyres are the slowest tyres so reliability/durability is massively important. With a lot of EWS racers using downhill tyres, or puncture protection stuff, even with narrower tyres moving to wider ones is a big deal.

That's not actually important, though, for most of us. I think the reason it's not taken over for consumer level is 3fold. First, the early tyres were all shite. (I tried it in the shite tyres phase and quickly sacked it, maybe I'd have liked it more if there'd been minions and magic marys and the like)

Second, it came along in a time of loads of industry churn where lots of people had just bought the latest greats 650b bike and didn't want to hear about this new exciting format just a few months later. (and manufacturers couldn't just ram it through like they did with bloody stupid boost). The early adopters didn't early-adopt in the expected volumes as it takes them at least a year to forget their last disappointment.

And third, from a manufacturer's point of view 2.6 let them sell a "new" thing without having to do so much redesign and retooling.

Mountain bikers always want the new shiny but we also don't want anything <too> different. It's why 650b became the dominant wheel standard frinstance, we always tend to go for the pointless middle ground. 2.6 lets us buy something that seems new (yes, even when teh bloody tyres are actually smaller than our 2.5s) without fretting whether or not we'll like it, because it's basicalyl the same

They’re only faster if they stay inflated. The only plus tyre I found that didn’t puncture was the Vee Bulldozer. I gave up after six rides in a row with unsealable punctures and almost skinting myself buying two tyres. Sold the Stache and went back to normal wheels with 2.3 and 2.4 tyres and haven’t had a single puncture since.

Probably just bad luck but it really put me off. Looking at my run times on my local route the fastest I’ve ever been was on an old 26” wheeled BFe

Never had any punctures with the 2.8 NN. It's a great tyre, particularly compared to the 2.6, which is practically identical to a NN 2.35.

Good article thanks

But what about 29 x 2.6?

Also, must be some mistake, no mention of gas laws when talking about tyre pressure 😉

ETA also, no mention of tyre volume at all.

I was chatting to Seb about this probably last year. He was convinced then that plus was faster but the tyres were rubbish, and I'd come to much the same conclusion. Neither of us ride plus much anymore (on full suspension bikes- on my hardtail they rule), and from my point of view it's because there's no 27+ tyres that are strong enough for normal riding and only one 29+ full susser exists.

my 4.0 tyres are slower than my 2.4s, however the grip of the bigger tyre in anything but slop is phenomenal

@munrobiker, there are 29er full sussers that will take quite wide tyres, wider than 2.3 (at least for summer, where mud clearance isn't so much of an issue). 2.6 (nominal, not actual) might fit some, 2.5 would certainly do. And Fox forks would definitely take 2.6 or more at the front. I ride with a few folk who go for the fattest that will fit at the front. One has "modified" his forks to take a full 3.0 29" (with a 27.5 on the rear) on his hardtail. There are options beyond what was tested, but I suppose you can't test every possibility.

That was an interesting read, thanks!