Part recommendations

Quoted message said:

Hi All,

Quoted message said:

I am about to dig my MTB out from under the snow, and will be making a
few "improvements" for the coming spring.

{Snip stuff not addressed}

Quoted message said:

Anyone know of extra wide and/or thick grips? My hands are wider than
the grips and the diameter could be larger for more hand comfort.
Suggestions?

OURY. (Since you want to run bar-ends, you'll need to cut off the "cap"
ends.)

Quoted message said:

I also need a longer seat-post. Something in the 410mm range. No
carbon. Suggestions?

Thomson Elite. Comes in 410.

Quoted message said:

Also tires. I was thinking 2.1" in the front and 2.1 or 2.2 in the
back. Something that rolls well on hard-pack and rock (not small
rocks, rather big slabs) but is still ok in mud and slop. I was
thinking of something with a not very agressive patterns like:

http://www.wtb.com/products/tires_NanoRaptor.html

Other suggestions?

Geax Sedonas, Mythos XC (IRC?), Panaracer Fire XC Pros, etc. Lots of good
choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by the way,
if running different sizes. Most common is same size/paired.)

Bill "relying on memory since I hardly ever touch dirt any more" S.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by the way,
if running different sizes. Most common is same size/paired.)

Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
front-back anyway, but curious.

Joseph

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by
the way, if running different sizes. Most common is same
size/paired.)

Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
front-back anyway, but curious.

Depends on terrain, I guess. Idea is to have a nice fat cushy tire in
front, and a "sharper, harder" tire in back to dig in to dirt (or cut
through mud to firmness below, but of course that's destructive and should
be avoided AMAP). Harder (more air pressure) also helps avoid pinch flats.

I still run 2.1s or 2.2s, and most people I know are on big fat 2.4s or
more. (I'm tubeless, so less choices I think.)

Bill "XC" S.

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by the way,
if running different sizes. Most common is same size/paired.)

Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
front-back anyway, but curious.

One tire will always skid or slip before the other. You want that tire to be the
one in back instead of the one in front, unless you like flirting with nurses.
With the larger tire in front you can run lower pressure, get more grip and have
a cushier and faster ride. The narrow tire in the back does a better job of
cutting through loose to get more straight line traction.

A front / rear set usually has two tires of the same size but with different
tread patterns for all the same reasons.

Ron

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
front-back anyway, but curious.

Quoted message said:

Depends on terrain, I guess. Idea is to have a nice fat cushy tire in
front, and a "sharper, harder" tire in back to dig in to dirt (or cut
through mud to firmness below, but of course that's destructive and should
be avoided AMAP). Harder (more air pressure) also helps avoid pinch flats.

It seems like this might be one area where Road Bike lore and Mountain
Bike lore diverge. I have a hard time imagining a pinch flat on a 2
inch mountain bike tire, if properly inflated.

Continental Attack/Force racing tire sets use a smaller tire up front.
I always run matched pairs but if they weren't matched, i'd put the
fat tires in the rear because 100% of my pinch flats have been on the
rear tire.

I don't do this any more but it's pretty darned easy to use a
mini-wheelie to yank a road bike front tire up a curb, but I'm never
able to complete the move with the rear tire without a slight risk of
pinch-flat.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

Donald Gillies said:

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
front-back anyway, but curious.

Quoted message said:

Depends on terrain, I guess. Idea is to have a nice fat cushy tire in
front, and a "sharper, harder" tire in back to dig in to dirt (or cut
through mud to firmness below, but of course that's destructive and should
be avoided AMAP). Harder (more air pressure) also helps avoid pinch flats.

It seems like this might be one area where Road Bike lore and Mountain
Bike lore diverge. I have a hard time imagining a pinch flat on a 2
inch mountain bike tire, if properly inflated.

What's properly inflated? 22 psi? 34 psi? 42 psi? 57 psi? Now
what's comfortable? What won't pinch flat. You don't ride much
off-road, do you? Otherwise you would know that there is no "properly
inflated" when you're riding off-road.

Trust us. Put as fat as tire that will fit on the front, and put just
about anything that doesn't pinch flat in the rear and you will be fine.

I run a 2.4 WTB Motoraptor up front, and anything between a 2.1
Velociraptor to a 2.4 Motoraptor in the rear. I would never waste a
larger tire on the rear. I can always pump up the rear to prevent pinch
flats and it doesn't affect performance a tenth as much as pumping up
the front. Front tire traction is way more important than rear tire
traction on a mtn bike.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

choices. (Conventional arrangement is the larger tire in FRONT, by
the way, if running different sizes. Most common is same
size/paired.)

Why? I was figuring on using a larger rear section to support the
greater weight on the back tire. I'll probably end up with the same
front-back anyway, but curious.

Depends on terrain, I guess. Idea is to have a nice fat cushy tire in
front, and a "sharper, harder" tire in back to dig in to dirt (or cut
through mud to firmness below, but of course that's destructive and should
be avoided AMAP). Harder (more air pressure) also helps avoid pinch flats.

I still run 2.1s or 2.2s, and most people I know are on big fat 2.4s or
more. (I'm tubeless, so less choices I think.)

Bill "XC" S.

I agree that it depends on terrain. I ride big fat tires front & back
(as big as I can get into my frame). I find that lowering the back tire
pressure helps traction on the rocky trails I ride around here -- seems
to keep more tire in contact -- but I'm on a hardtail, fullies might be
different. For the front, the time I really need traction is when
braking & turning on a DH, I haven't found tire size to be that big a
deal, tread profile is critical ("round" sucks). I mostly lower front
pressure for comfort, but too much makes them vague in turns. For loose
conditions (sand, snow), big tires and low pressure works. I haven't
found an advantage to using different sized tires, but my preference
would be big in back.