what an effort it must have been to actually produce these results. Big up for your passionate and detailed approach. I am amazed by the whole video. Fantastic job! Seb is pretty much the defintion of a-game testing in my opinion. :D
amazing test, but sorry, it's still too early to talk about statistical significance having just 4 observations per test situation, especially mentioning 95% confidence interval...
@@ydvitaSwim You're right that 4 observations would be insufficient but the p values refer to the 12 observations per tyre over all three tracks, using a paired t-test to compare between tyres run by run.
i am so glad that you spend time explaining statistics. you acknowledge issues with the tests, and try to be as transparent as possible, explaining any anomalies. While this isnt the most scientific test, it's not only the most comprehensive, but also as realistic as you can expect for such a difficult to control variable. Great piece bikeradar, i hope you continue with the journalistic integrity i have come to expect from your content!
The absolute boy! I was shouting at my computer that you didn’t list standard deviations or do a Student’s T test. “Seb!” I shouted, “you’re better than this!” But then you came through and delivered!
I commend you for four things. 1 - using a test system that used something resembling real science to test these tire sizes. 2 - Doing this test and publishing your results when the trend in the industry doesn't exactly match your results 3 - Avoiding industry and marketing hyperbole like "folding" of the tires, and "for new riders only" .... 4 - Actually using tire pressures that were appropriate for the larger volume. I can tell you actually rode the tires and didn't just spew some tired over used slogans about bigger tires. The bounce is real, and your comment that it largely isn't a big deal is spot on. Occasionally bottoming the rims means you got to low enough pressures to actually use the bigger tires. I'm sure this took a lot of work., well done. The skinny tire loving, weight weenies will be along shortly to rip apart your results. They don't care about anecdotal evidence, or even real numbers. They will stubbornly argue that their skinny tired 29er is fastest no matter what the mountain of evidence looks like. Next you can get even better results by doing the test with the right size rims. Maybe your sponsor will understand the science and produce wide rims appropriate for those (almost) 2.8 tires. Less squirm, less vauge, and they can use more side knobs as you lean.
Great comment. I'm new to mtbing, do you have any idea why XC and enduro racers aren't using plus-sized tyres even though they seem to be faster, especially enduro? Racers can't be that caught up in tradition at the cost of getting a competitive advantage surely! And there's enough independent racers that surely would use plus-sized tyres if they gave a competitive advantage. I'm not understanding.
@@alantaylor6691 On the XC side, most of those guys are weight weenies and their major concern is getting the lightest possible bike they can get away with. I can't speak for everyone about the enduro side but I personally don't enjoy the way plus tires feel as much as narrower ones.
@@alantaylor6691 Thank you. I'm not a XC racer so I don't have much inside information. On one hand they should know best because a real pro puts lots of thought, effort, and money into winning. On the other hand there has been a slow trend towards slacker angles and wider tires for decades. Much of that may be course changes, others in available technology. Some of it may just be they are letting go of old oudated ideas that skinny is fast.
@@alantaylor6691We see this kind of thought process in moto too. Then the whole industry follows suits and riders get on board. Change finally comes around when a top rider bucks the system and chooses a part, set up or position etc. and starts winning races.Then all or a lot of the racers start using said part, set up or position etc.
well you could have also 29"*2,8" tire. would be interesting to see if they are also faster then the 27,5"*2.8". @Arahorn the + Tires have flaws, most of them are not es durable as the smaller ones. I would as a Enduro race use the stuff what probably won't die on one race run and don't care about the weight that much.
One thing to consider regarding tire size and rolling resistance: CRR results from indoor "roller" testing translates very well into the real world for road tires because only the tire deforms whereas both the roller and the road do not. CRR results for mountain bike tires have another consideration however: how much the ground underneath the tire deforms. The larger your contact patch the less the soil deforms and the less energy you lose to the soil. If you've ever ridden over sugar sand on, say, a 2" XC tire and then a 4" fat tire this becomes immediately apparent. That said, varied conditions call for varied tires. A large contact patch might be great on some conditions but not others. Certain tread patterns are great in some conditions but not others. The trick is to have optionality. Personally, I think having the *option* to run up to 29x3.0" gives riders all the optionality they would ever need to match their tire to the conditions they are riding.
You are the best mountain bike tester in whole social media, very professional and comparison in base of facts and statistical data! Keep going bro! Thank you for sharing this videos to the world
On my Chameleon, I've been on Maxxis Rekon 27.5 x 2.8s front and rear mounted on 40mm rims and it is simply a game changer..... but I hope nobody believes it, so the bike industry doesn't suddenly raise the prices...... never mind, nothing to see here, everyone stay on your 2.3s.
When I had a Rocky Mountain Sherpa - I could run 13 lbs in 27.5 x 2.8 tires. I think the rim width was a crazy 45 mm but in my opinion, you really need to go low on tire pressure to maximize the benefits of 2.8 tires and not have them bounce - which are huge in rooty terrain. To run 13 lbs, I think you need at least 40mm rims. Also, climbing fire roads isn't what I'm interested in - I'd like to see climbing test on a rooty trail.
At the end of the day the best size is the one that gives enough traction for the conditions, providing enough confort in rouf terrain, and is still light enough for climbs and distance. If you you ride 20 miles on 2.8s which may include 1500ft elevation gain, i am doubtful they are faster than 2.3s. Great Vid!
Love the scientific comparison of these tires! I have seen a ton of videos on tire size, and this was the most informative. I wish I saw this 3 years ago. Keep up the good work.
I've been running 2.8 inch tires for 3 years already. I'll never go back. So much grip which leads to confidence. And now we see from a very scientific process that the bigger tires are actually faster in almost all situations. I am told often by people who have never tried plus tires how awful they are because of what they read online or in a magazine. Makes me chuckle.
Not surprising that plus tires are faster than regular 27.5s. After all, plus tires are larger diameter (nearly the same as a 29er). A more telling test would be whether plus tires are faster than 29s.
Yes, as I've already commented elsewhere on here I'm looking into getting a bike again after not riding MTB for around 20 years. I'm interested in which on average would be faster all round. From what I understand plus is more grip for cornering etc. but saying that even 29er tyres seem to be wider than what I was using back then on a 26" wheel hardtail.
Wheel diameter is slightly smaller at 27,5x2,8 and the weight is almost the same, usually the 27,5+ tires are even a bit lighter than 29 inch because they tend to save weight on the sidewalls.
Why can't I give anything more than just one thumb up? What you accomplished here is so immensely well made and useful! I can't imagine all the effort you put into this. Amazing! I especially like you attention to statistic detail ... real edutaning stuff!
Well done. confirms my assumptions too. Have been riding Plus bikes for 2 years (after 30 years of 26ers, lol), and I like em. Tire selection is a huge problem though. I have gone down to 2.8/2.6 combo on my 2 current rides though (oh and 3.0/3.0 on my hardtail). In our PNW wet winter I have been down to 13psi lately to keep from sliding off the glassy-wet roots. I sure which there were more maxx-sticky options in plus tires!
Nice to see a video on this topic. I ride 3.0" tires on both my plus bikes. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said plus tires haven't caught on because we don't see the pros using them.
Holy crap! Seb's bum sensitivity is higher than my hands'! How can he discern or know what the tyre casing is doing at all times with all sorts of different pressures! Genuinely astonishing. Very thorough research! Loved it!
I’m a fairly new rider and am loving the 2.8 stock Maxxis tires on my Whyte 905. I feel they’ve really helped my riding and given me a good boost of confidence. Running them tubeless about 20 psi. Great on the hardtail too! Great vid 😊
I clicked this video an was somewhat skeptical, but once you said you had performed a students T test on the results, I was impressed. Great job and very good reporting.
I had 5 flats on my racerking 2.2 and i wanted to make a bullet proof tire so i cutted the side walls of the tire and kept only the knobs surface ..then i glued it (knobs facing up) in the interior of a Kenda Kinetics,i knew that i wouldn t find a tire thick like that so i made it myself,i love it!
That was brilliant! You've left no detail untouched. I've got 40mm RaceFace rims which seem to call for minimum size 2.6 tyres. With my Maxxis Rekon+ 2.8's my rear wheel seems to slip a bit on loose loam here in Vermont and I've been laboring over moving to a more narrow tyre for better traction. Your tests seems to show it wouldn't likely help. Guess I just need to work on my cornering!
I was an early convert to plus tires and had many heated discussions with my fellow riders listening to them telling me it didn't work for them because they're so pro and the tires are for beginners. I also love 29er ride characteristic. I've been putting 2.6s on my 29er but yearning to be able to get a good 29 x 2.8 - a tire size that almost doesn't exist and almost no bikes designed to handle this. This test is going to make me search even harder for the magical Unicorn bike. Slack, long, steep seat angle, not too low a bb, Marin Wolfridge suspension, able to take 29 x 2.8, 160mm travel... Thanks so much for applying real science to this topic!!!
@@ZenJuddhism too bad I own a bike shop and we aren't Trek dealers... that is the problem for me. Trek Full Stache is a bike I'd love to try if that weren't the case!
Ok so I just ordered some 2.8" tires! Pretty convincing test data here, we'll see how they perform! Currently have 27.5x2.6 Trail King+Mountain King. What really sold me was that the 2.8s were actually faster or the same on the climbs which is totally opposite to what I would have thought.
I've got a 2.4 rear 2.5 front on my enduro and they suck for peddling very numb on rough stuff. My stumpy has 2.25z on it and it'll do 8 more miles in the same time as the enduro. Lot is the bike. But yea I'm dropping the big tyres for summer
I run a mix of 2.4 and 2.6 and theyre great compared to the older thinner tyres. The main difference I find which wasnt focussed on here is in the climbing. I ride a lot in loose rock and wet clay and I find its very hard to break traction when climbing. This allows you to get up some "impossible" sections as long as you can keep putting the power in.
Would love to see this type of systematic analysis applied to to oval vs round chain rings ... lot of hype around the oval but I have never seen any hard data ... the tire analysis was GREAT and gave me a lot to think about!
Great video. I love how you thoroughly explained it all. I just slapped on 2.6 tires on my bike and have debating on 2.8 I guess it's time for another upgrade.
Thank you for taking the time to grind the numbers out and truly test the comparisons. I rate this experiment as you have seriously tried to average out results and limit your variables in such a fluctuating, irregular sport that is mountain biking/DH. hats off to ya! looking forward to your next test if and when you do so. I would like to see (as someone has already commented) whether plus tires are faster than 29s whether 2.8 tires with a similar overall diameter to a 29er tire is faster. bigger sidewall vs bigger rim diameter ???
Awesome vid! Quite an effort!👍🏻 Rarely seen such a good comparison... But you should keep one thing in mind: The 2.8 you measured 2.6X is in fact a true 2.6 and the 2.6 you measured 2.4X is in fact a true 2.4 or 2.5 inch tire. Schwalbe and Continental, but also the 2021 Specilized tires measure true to what is written on the sidewalls. So, a true 2.8 inch tire could probably be a bit over the top for most riders and conditions on a Non-E-Bike... Anyway... Great content! Thanx and cheers from Germany!✌🏻😉👍🏻
One thing to consider is that the wider the tire is on a smaller rim the more rounded the shoulder to shoulder profile becomes on the wider tires. Meaning on the same width rims, the 2.3 will have a flatter shoulder where the 2.8 will round out a little better and end up having less contact at when the bike is upright. So despite being wider the 2.8 might actually have less contact with the road because of that Bowing of the wider tire on a more narrow rim, than the 2.6 or 2.3. It would be good to repeat the test with proportionately sized rims. I’ve seen several sources and tire manufactures use a similar explanation in their rim width suggestions for the different sized tires at least for the rolling portion of the test.
been obsessing over this decision for the last couple weeks, good to know that bigger doesn't necessarily mean slower and could actually be faster. Was just getting too many punctures and damaged rims on the smaller / lighter tyres.
One of the best if not the best analysis of any comparison I have seen in the bike world. Have not yet checked out your other projects. If not already done lets see the 27.5 x 2.8 compared to a 29er x ? if outer diameter is comparable. Great Job!
When I graduated from my 26 x 2.1" I went straight to the 27.5 x 2.8". What a difference, I do notice the 2.8 are much more picky about the pressure +/- .5psi is highly noticeable in ride quality on the 2.8's. Always checking my pressure.
new sub here...love yer shite so far. running 27.5x2.8(stock on my 2018 cannondale cujo 3) but can't get over the $100+ price tag that comes with replacing ONE tire... after riding 1/2 way thru the season, swapping the rear tire to the front before the rear tire gets worn down too much is a great tip to save $$
oh and great job with the statistics, as a student I can tell you put many hours into them and it helped me reach a conclusion, still, more testing never hurts!
Good job as always Seb! It would also be good the compare both 29 and 27.5 in all sizes to see if it's not just the increase in wheel diameter rather than the increased width. Also how did you find running the 2.8 on the 33 internal rims? Was it good or would you prefer to run something like a 40?
We have the debate often at the shop, this was cool to see. You should try it again with a rim for a mid-fat as they are considerably wider than the rim designed for a 2.3. It will make the tire wider, closer to the actual labelled size. It really may make a big difference, could be worth another video.
I just switched from 2.8 to 2.6 front and rear. The main issue with my 2.8 was the weight; not only for climbing but for cornering. Considering is unsprung weight that is also turning. 2.6 made my bike feel much more agile and nimble.
Great work on a great test!! I love seeing this stuff, especially when you’ve really thought about the details!!! As others have mentioned it would be great to see a similar year comparing a 29er xc wheel/tyre combo /day 2.2-2.4inch width) to the 2.8plus tyres, since overall tyre diameter may play a larger roll than width? (Just hypothesizing here). Also, I wonder why xc pros aren’t all on plus bikes with 2.8tyres
Wife and I rented two Specialized Cambr's at Bootleg canyon earlier this year. She has 27.5+ and I had standard 29. The 27.5+ feels great because it is confidence inspiring. Ride it for a while and it starts to feel like an anchor. The first two or 3 pedal strokes require more power. (getting up to speed) . I switched back and forth several times and disliked the 27.5 more each time. (After thinking I liked it more at first)
Might have been a little easier to explain the air pressure/tire width thing in terms of actual measured contact patch with static axle weight divided by air pressure. Severe load swings cause the tire to deform more, which is fantastic for straight line and steady state changes so you can dump a lot of speed and corner. I've used up to 2.6" tires on 26" wheels for year and had a Stumpjumper 6Fattie with the 3.0" tire. If you're on rough ground (and it's a mountain bike, so...) then the bigger tire with correct pressures are the way to go. It's a shame so many people went to print/publishing with larger wheels having a "larger contact patch" when they were using the same or even higher tire pressures. Sigh. Lower pressure or greater axle load means bigger contact patch. Wider tire gives you a wider shape to the contact patch for a given load until you run out of supported width, and then it deforms along the length (direction of travel). This is why you need much higher pressures for skinnier tires, and when they're flat you can see a much longer contact patch when rolling on course or parked.
Great analysis Seb. You must have been a data analyst in a former life. One thing that still sticks with me amongst all this, is as you said, the trails were all the same condition. Dry and dusty. My personal experience is that I find on my ebike with 2.8's they have a huge benefit on dusty loose stuff, but skate across water and mud with less control, but the stopping power is immense. I prefer riding 29er 2.3's on my analogue bike through the winter as I feel they cut through puddles and slop with more control. My conclusion is that the ideal is to have a set of summer wheels with 2.8's and winter wheels with 2.3's but if I was doing a wet and rocky course like coed y brenin then most times the 2.3's would be safer. I've had more punctures on the 2.8's. The 2.6's are probably a good compromise if you only want a single do it all tyre. I'm glad we've got the choice and it is horses for courses. Once again, nice work fella!
I was thinking the same thing about different trail conditions. Here we have a lot of tight twist trails with often thin covering of mud or other loose soil, I feel like my 29er with only 2.35's cuts through nicely but haven't tried a wider tire. Of course on sand or loose dry stuff I too would imagine the 2.8 or larger would be more confident. I may try a 2.6 up front next tire change.
Very interesting test! I m thinking that probably the best result of the 2.8 is also becouse a 27.5x2.8 is quite a 29", so haw much the external circonference influence the result? If there was a 2.8x29 it could be interesting make the same test with the 29 with 2.3, 2.6, and the gost 2.8.
This is really well done. As a BMXer looking to get into mountain bikes I found this extremely useful. Maybe you can also answer a question that has been plaguing me. Why are there no street tires for 27.5, although PLENTY of options for 29? I plan on getting a trail style hardtail that I can switch tires/wheels when I want to ride street.
Mind blown by this I expected very different results in many ways 🤔 I absolutely commend your efforts to be so thorough but would love to see an update on how mud effects the results but also if a narrower rear tyre would be better as many claim that it's best to have a wider front tyre than rear
Great and interesting test. 👍. You have put quite some time and work in this test. I was surprised that the 2.3 tyres werent the fastest on the climbs. I currently ride 2.6 tyres and like them.
VERY IMPORTANT: When ride 2.8 you need either strong sidewalls or inserts, or both. That helps with the deformation at low pressures. And always not less than 38mm iw wheels
This is a really good presentation but this was done for the experienced mountain biker on fancy dual suspension bikes. The real test would be to do this on a hardtail for the simple reason "its for the beginner mountain bike rider" we all modify the hell out of out first bikes as we grow as riders before we move on to another. Maybe you could do a shorter test explaining the wheel sizes. Cheers man good job.
What's your top tyre size for hitting the trails? Do you think wider is better? 🚵♂️
2.6, never going smaller!
BikeRadar 2.35
25mm for them big rocks lol
Found the roadie
2.6 in the front and 2.3-2.4 in the back
This is exactly the kind of testing we need more of! Killer job!
what an effort it must have been to actually produce these results. Big up for your passionate and detailed approach. I am amazed by the whole video. Fantastic job! Seb is pretty much the defintion of a-game testing in my opinion. :D
It's great isn't it, certainly very different than the completely lazy throw-away "tests" they pump out at GCN and GMBN!
amazing test, but sorry, it's still too early to talk about statistical significance having just 4 observations per test situation, especially mentioning 95% confidence interval...
@@ydvitaSwim You're right that 4 observations would be insufficient but the p values refer to the 12 observations per tyre over all three tracks, using a paired t-test to compare between tyres run by run.
@@sebstott3573 Seb, I love how you do your testing, can't wait for your next experiment 😍
i am so glad that you spend time explaining statistics. you acknowledge issues with the tests, and try to be as transparent as possible, explaining any anomalies. While this isnt the most scientific test, it's not only the most comprehensive, but also as realistic as you can expect for such a difficult to control variable.
Great piece bikeradar, i hope you continue with the journalistic integrity i have come to expect from your content!
Seb's testing/comparison methodology is very good!! 👍
More comparison tests like this please! 😊
The absolute boy! I was shouting at my computer that you didn’t list standard deviations or do a Student’s T test. “Seb!” I shouted, “you’re better than this!” But then you came through and delivered!
Great work! Love these detailed comparison tests. Very interesting to see all the specifics of the varying sizes
I commend you for four things. 1 - using a test system that used something resembling real science to test these tire sizes. 2 - Doing this test and publishing your results when the trend in the industry doesn't exactly match your results 3 - Avoiding industry and marketing hyperbole like "folding" of the tires, and "for new riders only" .... 4 - Actually using tire pressures that were appropriate for the larger volume.
I can tell you actually rode the tires and didn't just spew some tired over used slogans about bigger tires. The bounce is real, and your comment that it largely isn't a big deal is spot on. Occasionally bottoming the rims means you got to low enough pressures to actually use the bigger tires.
I'm sure this took a lot of work., well done. The skinny tire loving, weight weenies will be along shortly to rip apart your results. They don't care about anecdotal evidence, or even real numbers. They will stubbornly argue that their skinny tired 29er is fastest no matter what the mountain of evidence looks like.
Next you can get even better results by doing the test with the right size rims. Maybe your sponsor will understand the science and produce wide rims appropriate for those (almost) 2.8 tires. Less squirm, less vauge, and they can use more side knobs as you lean.
Great comment. I'm new to mtbing, do you have any idea why XC and enduro racers aren't using plus-sized tyres even though they seem to be faster, especially enduro? Racers can't be that caught up in tradition at the cost of getting a competitive advantage surely! And there's enough independent racers that surely would use plus-sized tyres if they gave a competitive advantage. I'm not understanding.
@@alantaylor6691 On the XC side, most of those guys are weight weenies and their major concern is getting the lightest possible bike they can get away with. I can't speak for everyone about the enduro side but I personally don't enjoy the way plus tires feel as much as narrower ones.
@@alantaylor6691 Thank you. I'm not a XC racer so I don't have much inside information. On one hand they should know best because a real pro puts lots of thought, effort, and money into winning. On the other hand there has been a slow trend towards slacker angles and wider tires for decades. Much of that may be course changes, others in available technology. Some of it may just be they are letting go of old oudated ideas that skinny is fast.
@@alantaylor6691We see this kind of thought process in moto too. Then the whole industry follows suits and riders get on board. Change finally comes around when a top rider bucks the system and chooses a part, set up or position etc. and starts winning races.Then all or a lot of the racers start using said part, set up or position etc.
well you could have also 29"*2,8" tire. would be interesting to see if they are also faster then the 27,5"*2.8".
@Arahorn the + Tires have flaws, most of them are not es durable as the smaller ones. I would as a Enduro race use the stuff what probably won't die on one race run and don't care about the weight that much.
One thing to consider regarding tire size and rolling resistance: CRR results from indoor "roller" testing translates very well into the real world for road tires because only the tire deforms whereas both the roller and the road do not. CRR results for mountain bike tires have another consideration however: how much the ground underneath the tire deforms. The larger your contact patch the less the soil deforms and the less energy you lose to the soil. If you've ever ridden over sugar sand on, say, a 2" XC tire and then a 4" fat tire this becomes immediately apparent.
That said, varied conditions call for varied tires. A large contact patch might be great on some conditions but not others. Certain tread patterns are great in some conditions but not others. The trick is to have optionality. Personally, I think having the *option* to run up to 29x3.0" gives riders all the optionality they would ever need to match their tire to the conditions they are riding.
You are the best mountain bike tester in whole social media, very professional and comparison in base of facts and statistical data! Keep going bro! Thank you for sharing this videos to the world
On my Chameleon, I've been on Maxxis Rekon 27.5 x 2.8s front and rear mounted on 40mm rims and it is simply a game changer..... but I hope nobody believes it, so the bike industry doesn't suddenly raise the prices...... never mind, nothing to see here, everyone stay on your 2.3s.
lol i ride 27.5 rekon 2.8s too
When I had a Rocky Mountain Sherpa - I could run 13 lbs in 27.5 x 2.8 tires. I think the rim width was a crazy 45 mm but in my opinion, you really need to go low on tire pressure to maximize the benefits of 2.8 tires and not have them bounce - which are huge in rooty terrain. To run 13 lbs, I think you need at least 40mm rims. Also, climbing fire roads isn't what I'm interested in - I'd like to see climbing test on a rooty trail.
At the end of the day the best size is the one that gives enough traction for the conditions, providing enough confort in rouf terrain, and is still light enough for climbs and distance. If you you ride 20 miles on 2.8s which may include 1500ft elevation gain, i am doubtful they are faster than 2.3s. Great Vid!
Solid testing and information, you have a new sub
This was a very good presentation of the results of this tire size comparison. Many of the finer points outside of the numbers, were well articulated.
Love the scientific comparison of these tires! I have seen a ton of videos on tire size, and this was the most informative. I wish I saw this 3 years ago. Keep up the good work.
Great video! From what you say though it sounds like 2.8 front and 2.6 rear might be the best combo.
I've been running 2.8 inch tires for 3 years already. I'll never go back. So much grip which leads to confidence. And now we see from a very scientific process that the bigger tires are actually faster in almost all situations. I am told often by people who have never tried plus tires how awful they are because of what they read online or in a magazine. Makes me chuckle.
Not surprising that plus tires are faster than regular 27.5s. After all, plus tires are larger diameter (nearly the same as a 29er). A more telling test would be whether plus tires are faster than 29s.
jesse wanna see this test next!!!
Yes, as I've already commented elsewhere on here I'm looking into getting a bike again after not riding MTB for around 20 years. I'm interested in which on average would be faster all round. From what I understand plus is more grip for cornering etc. but saying that even 29er tyres seem to be wider than what I was using back then on a 26" wheel hardtail.
I would be interested in this too. 29 2.3 vs 27.5 2.8. Wheel diameter vs. tire width.
Wheel diameter is slightly smaller at 27,5x2,8 and the weight is almost the same, usually the 27,5+ tires are even a bit lighter than 29 inch because they tend to save weight on the sidewalls.
Plus tires also come in 29" diameter. This is a test that usefully compares apples to apples imho.
Amazingly thorough assessment. I'm an Aerospace engineer and absolutely commend your effort and resolve. Fantastic work, thanks. Andy
Why can't I give anything more than just one thumb up?
What you accomplished here is so immensely well made and useful! I can't imagine all the effort you put into this. Amazing!
I especially like you attention to statistic detail ... real edutaning stuff!
I value your professional approach to this test and the effort you put into it. Job very well done!
Well done. confirms my assumptions too. Have been riding Plus bikes for 2 years (after 30 years of 26ers, lol), and I like em. Tire selection is a huge problem though. I have gone down to 2.8/2.6 combo on my 2 current rides though (oh and 3.0/3.0 on my hardtail). In our PNW wet winter I have been down to 13psi lately to keep from sliding off the glassy-wet roots. I sure which there were more maxx-sticky options in plus tires!
Nice to see a video on this topic. I ride 3.0" tires on both my plus bikes. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said plus tires haven't caught on because we don't see the pros using them.
Man the seriously scientific approach is super commendable. I love all the data points and reducing as many variables as possible.
I find this video to be statistically enjoyable!
Holy crap! Seb's bum sensitivity is higher than my hands'! How can he discern or know what the tyre casing is doing at all times with all sorts of different pressures!
Genuinely astonishing. Very thorough research! Loved it!
I’m a fairly new rider and am loving the 2.8 stock Maxxis tires on my Whyte 905. I feel they’ve really helped my riding and given me a good boost of confidence. Running them tubeless about 20 psi. Great on the hardtail too! Great vid 😊
I am glad to hear this as I just got my Norco Fluid FS2 and it comes with 2.6 front and rear.
Finally, actual testing. Amazing work. Keep them coming
I clicked this video an was somewhat skeptical, but once you said you had performed a students T test on the results, I was impressed. Great job and very good reporting.
I had 5 flats on my racerking 2.2 and i wanted to make a bullet proof tire so i cutted the side walls of the tire and kept only the knobs surface ..then i glued it (knobs facing up) in the interior of a Kenda Kinetics,i knew that i wouldn t find a tire thick like that so i made it myself,i love it!
That was brilliant! You've left no detail untouched. I've got 40mm RaceFace rims which seem to call for minimum size 2.6 tyres. With my Maxxis Rekon+ 2.8's my rear wheel seems to slip a bit on loose loam here in Vermont and I've been laboring over moving to a more narrow tyre for better traction. Your tests seems to show it wouldn't likely help. Guess I just need to work on my cornering!
Excellent stuff, guys. I thoroughly enjoyed the number crunching and the format.
Thank you for your hard work and for sharing this with us.
I was an early convert to plus tires and had many heated discussions with my fellow riders listening to them telling me it didn't work for them because they're so pro and the tires are for beginners. I also love 29er ride characteristic. I've been putting 2.6s on my 29er but yearning to be able to get a good 29 x 2.8 - a tire size that almost doesn't exist and almost no bikes designed to handle this. This test is going to make me search even harder for the magical Unicorn bike. Slack, long, steep seat angle, not too low a bb, Marin Wolfridge suspension, able to take 29 x 2.8, 160mm travel... Thanks so much for applying real science to this topic!!!
Trek Full Stache might be close?
@@ZenJuddhism too bad I own a bike shop and we aren't Trek dealers... that is the problem for me. Trek Full Stache is a bike I'd love to try if that weren't the case!
Solid deets, helped me justify a jump from 2.1 to 2.6 for those messy rides - thanks my guy
Sooo...get fat bike
Meanwhile here with 2.2 XC tires.
Super Great Testing! Best ive seen so far regarding these issues! Thanks! David, Sweden
Glad you enjoyed it!
great work, one of the best tests i have seen here, thorough, and with a definitive result
Thanks for watching! Do you think the results will change which type of tyre you go for next?
I love when there is a bike radar does science video but this is a whole new level of does science and I love every second of it!
Ok so I just ordered some 2.8" tires! Pretty convincing test data here, we'll see how they perform! Currently have 27.5x2.6 Trail King+Mountain King. What really sold me was that the 2.8s were actually faster or the same on the climbs which is totally opposite to what I would have thought.
2.8 any better for you?
I've got a 2.4 rear 2.5 front on my enduro and they suck for peddling very numb on rough stuff. My stumpy has 2.25z on it and it'll do 8 more miles in the same time as the enduro. Lot is the bike. But yea I'm dropping the big tyres for summer
Wow! That is very surprising to me. Great video dude. Very well done. Covered this topic with very complete information. Keep it coming!
Your test methodology is very thorough !
I applaud your explanation.
Awesome work !!!
Thank you
Excellent as always, Seb is kind of the reference point for a professional tester.
I run a mix of 2.4 and 2.6 and theyre great compared to the older thinner tyres. The main difference I find which wasnt focussed on here is in the climbing. I ride a lot in loose rock and wet clay and I find its very hard to break traction when climbing. This allows you to get up some "impossible" sections as long as you can keep putting the power in.
Would love to see this type of systematic analysis applied to to oval vs round chain rings ... lot of hype around the oval but I have never seen any hard data ... the tire analysis was GREAT and gave me a lot to think about!
Brilliant, very helpful! Well done Seb 👍🏻
Great video. I love how you thoroughly explained it all. I just slapped on 2.6 tires on my bike and have debating on 2.8 I guess it's time for another upgrade.
This is incredibly well done. As and senior engineer I applaud you 👏
Thank you for taking the time to grind the numbers out and truly test the comparisons. I rate this experiment as you have seriously tried to average out results and limit your variables in such a fluctuating, irregular sport that is mountain biking/DH. hats off to ya! looking forward to your next test if and when you do so.
I would like to see (as someone has already commented)
whether plus tires are faster than 29s
whether 2.8 tires with a similar overall diameter to a 29er tire is faster.
bigger sidewall vs bigger rim diameter
???
Awesome vid! Quite an effort!👍🏻
Rarely seen such a good comparison...
But you should keep one thing in mind: The 2.8 you measured 2.6X is in fact a true 2.6 and the 2.6 you measured 2.4X is in fact a true 2.4 or 2.5 inch tire.
Schwalbe and Continental, but also the 2021 Specilized tires measure true to what is written on the sidewalls.
So, a true 2.8 inch tire could probably be a bit over the top for most riders and conditions on a Non-E-Bike...
Anyway... Great content! Thanx and cheers from Germany!✌🏻😉👍🏻
One thing to consider is that the wider the tire is on a smaller rim the more rounded the shoulder to shoulder profile becomes on the wider tires. Meaning on the same width rims, the 2.3 will have a flatter shoulder where the 2.8 will round out a little better and end up having less contact at when the bike is upright. So despite being wider the 2.8 might actually have less contact with the road because of that Bowing of the wider tire on a more narrow rim, than the 2.6 or 2.3. It would be good to repeat the test with proportionately sized rims. I’ve seen several sources and tire manufactures use a similar explanation in their rim width suggestions for the different sized tires at least for the rolling portion of the test.
Wow, kudos on the statistical significance bit! Nice to see this.
Fantastic study. I'd be really interested to see a follow-up comparing 27.5x2.3, 27.5x2.8 and 29x2.3.
Great attention to detail and very informative! More of these please!
I appreciate Bike Radar going to great lengths to do these tests as scientifically as is practical. Good job everyone!
been obsessing over this decision for the last couple weeks, good to know that bigger doesn't necessarily mean slower and could actually be faster. Was just getting too many punctures and damaged rims on the smaller / lighter tyres.
As a scientist myself I can only say - very very well done! Impressively meticulous!
Thanks for the stats. I plan on experimenting my race day set up with a 2.6 on the front keeping the 2.3 on the back.
Great to hear you found them useful and good luck with the test!
That’s the exact same setup as mine
One of the best if not the best analysis of any comparison I have seen in the bike world. Have not yet checked out your other projects. If not already done lets see the 27.5 x 2.8 compared to a 29er x ? if outer diameter is comparable. Great Job!
Awesome job!
I can't believe how much work you put into this video. Thank you!!
Additionally, I think bigger tires offer more comfort.
We want more detailed stuff like this!
When I graduated from my 26 x 2.1" I went straight to the 27.5 x 2.8". What a difference, I do notice the 2.8 are much more picky about the pressure +/- .5psi is highly noticeable in ride quality on the 2.8's. Always checking my pressure.
That’s the perfect bike for the test👍🏻 I just ordered 2.6 Maxxis DHR 2 for my Specialized Enduro Comp, front and rear🤘🏻 awesome review
Love this!! Best kind of high value added content!! Please do more analytical stuff like this. Did you do something similar for 27.5 vs 29 wheels?
Ive seen scientific studies that were less rigorous in their testing than this video
new sub here...love yer shite so far.
running 27.5x2.8(stock on my 2018 cannondale cujo 3) but can't get over the $100+ price tag that comes with replacing ONE tire...
after riding 1/2 way thru the season, swapping the rear tire to the front before the rear tire gets worn down too much is a great tip to save $$
oh and great job with the statistics, as a student I can tell you put many hours into them and it helped me reach a conclusion, still, more testing never hurts!
Good job as always Seb! It would also be good the compare both 29 and 27.5 in all sizes to see if it's not just the increase in wheel diameter rather than the increased width. Also how did you find running the 2.8 on the 33 internal rims? Was it good or would you prefer to run something like a 40?
We have the debate often at the shop, this was cool to see. You should try it again with a rim for a mid-fat as they are considerably wider than the rim designed for a 2.3. It will make the tire wider, closer to the actual labelled size. It really may make a big difference, could be worth another video.
Great efforts in trying to minimize error.
I just switched from 2.8 to 2.6 front and rear. The main issue with my 2.8 was the weight; not only for climbing but for cornering. Considering is unsprung weight that is also turning. 2.6 made my bike feel much more agile and nimble.
Great work on a great test!! I love seeing this stuff, especially when you’ve really thought about the details!!!
As others have mentioned it would be great to see a similar year comparing a 29er xc wheel/tyre combo /day 2.2-2.4inch width) to the 2.8plus tyres, since overall tyre diameter may play a larger roll than width? (Just hypothesizing here).
Also, I wonder why xc pros aren’t all on plus bikes with 2.8tyres
I'm asking the same question.
Amazing test and effort to give us the best answer for different tyre sizes 👏 🙌 👍
Well done with mitigating variables.
Thanks for such a comprehensive test.
great video, excellent widths chosen for comparison when looking at 2019 options
Fantastic job on this test!!!
holy crap. dem numbers!!!!!! my head hurts LOL
Haha yeah 😂
Wife and I rented two Specialized Cambr's at Bootleg canyon earlier this year. She has 27.5+ and I had standard 29. The 27.5+ feels great because it is confidence inspiring. Ride it for a while and it starts to feel like an anchor.
The first two or 3 pedal strokes require more power. (getting up to speed) . I switched back and forth several times and disliked the 27.5 more each time. (After thinking I liked it more at first)
Impressive mate. Thanks
My man isn't just a mountain biker but also a scientist. Good video
Very good! Thanks... I have 27.5 x 2.1 wide, will try the 2.6.
This is a great video. Really has all the data and science. Love it
Great review terrific explanation on the tyres.
Ever thought about why motorcycles have a skinny front and wide rear 🤫
Well done, amazing study!!
2.8s are brilliant, I'd never go back to skinny tyres.
Yeah, 2.2, 2.3 etc are dead to me
I’ve punch flatted mine a ton. Just added a huck Norris to see if that helps because I’ve loved everything else about my 2.8’s
@@roryjohnson3567 must admit, they are more prone to punctures. I can live with that though.
@@TheAegisClaw is that because of the lower pressures?
@@TheAegisClaw I have run 2.3 on one bike and 2.8 Maxxis Minions DHF & DHR on another bike and my rear tire got a bad puncture on the 2.8 :/
Might have been a little easier to explain the air pressure/tire width thing in terms of actual measured contact patch with static axle weight divided by air pressure. Severe load swings cause the tire to deform more, which is fantastic for straight line and steady state changes so you can dump a lot of speed and corner. I've used up to 2.6" tires on 26" wheels for year and had a Stumpjumper 6Fattie with the 3.0" tire. If you're on rough ground (and it's a mountain bike, so...) then the bigger tire with correct pressures are the way to go.
It's a shame so many people went to print/publishing with larger wheels having a "larger contact patch" when they were using the same or even higher tire pressures. Sigh. Lower pressure or greater axle load means bigger contact patch. Wider tire gives you a wider shape to the contact patch for a given load until you run out of supported width, and then it deforms along the length (direction of travel). This is why you need much higher pressures for skinnier tires, and when they're flat you can see a much longer contact patch when rolling on course or parked.
Pedals and Pinheads that was not easier to understand lol. But yeah, after thinking real hard I get what you’re saying
Great analysis Seb. You must have been a data analyst in a former life. One thing that still sticks with me amongst all this, is as you said, the trails were all the same condition. Dry and dusty.
My personal experience is that I find on my ebike with 2.8's they have a huge benefit on dusty loose stuff, but skate across water and mud with less control, but the stopping power is immense. I prefer riding 29er 2.3's on my analogue bike through the winter as I feel they cut through puddles and slop with more control. My conclusion is that the ideal is to have a set of summer wheels with 2.8's and winter wheels with 2.3's but if I was doing a wet and rocky course like coed y brenin then most times the 2.3's would be safer. I've had more punctures on the 2.8's.
The 2.6's are probably a good compromise if you only want a single do it all tyre. I'm glad we've got the choice and it is horses for courses. Once again, nice work fella!
I was thinking the same thing about different trail conditions. Here we have a lot of tight twist trails with often thin covering of mud or other loose soil, I feel like my 29er with only 2.35's cuts through nicely but haven't tried a wider tire. Of course on sand or loose dry stuff I too would imagine the 2.8 or larger would be more confident. I may try a 2.6 up front next tire change.
Very interesting test!
I m thinking that probably the best result of the 2.8 is also becouse a 27.5x2.8 is quite a 29", so haw much the external circonference influence the result?
If there was a 2.8x29 it could be interesting make the same test with the 29 with 2.3, 2.6, and the gost 2.8.
Very informative! Really helpful. Thank you!
This is really well done. As a BMXer looking to get into mountain bikes I found this extremely useful. Maybe you can also answer a question that has been plaguing me. Why are there no street tires for 27.5, although PLENTY of options for 29? I plan on getting a trail style hardtail that I can switch tires/wheels when I want to ride street.
Another killer video as usual from you guys! 👍👍👍
Mind blown by this I expected very different results in many ways 🤔 I absolutely commend your efforts to be so thorough but would love to see an update on how mud effects the results but also if a narrower rear tyre would be better as many claim that it's best to have a wider front tyre than rear
Great and interesting test. 👍. You have put quite some time and work in this test. I was surprised that the 2.3 tyres werent the fastest on the climbs. I currently ride 2.6 tyres and like them.
2.5 maxxis suites me best as im only 10 stone and anything bigger the front feels too vague. Very interesting and well put together test.
VERY IMPORTANT: When ride 2.8 you need either strong sidewalls or inserts, or both. That helps with the deformation at low pressures. And always not less than 38mm iw wheels
where are these 38mm wheels? Not many that wide and light?
This is a really good presentation but this was done for the experienced mountain biker on fancy dual suspension bikes. The real test would be to do this on a hardtail for the simple reason "its for the beginner mountain bike rider" we all modify the hell out of out first bikes as we grow as riders before we move on to another. Maybe you could do a shorter test explaining the wheel sizes. Cheers man good job.
I just changed to the 2.6 Butcher in a 29inches wheel .
Loving it.
excellent test procedure