Patrick, If I understand your issue with bounce correctly, it can most likely be addressed by adding more air regardless of how wide the tire is. I think you have written about finding that out with your current tires (were too bouncy, added air, now fine). So I doubt very much that bounce issues limit you to nothing larger than 2.1" tires.
I think the question for you is how a wider tire would benefit you, and are those benefits great enough to induce you to get a bike that fits wider tires. One approach to choosing tire width is to get a big enough tire to avoid pinch flats with pressures as low as you want to use. Since you already know how soft you want your tires because of bounce (or will soon with some iteration), if you are not getting pinch flats then your tires are big enough by that line reasoning. Another advantage of bigger tires is that they roll over larger obstacles more easily. Wider tires are also taller tires, and so are larger radius tires, and larger radius wheels are less effected by obstructions (like rocks for instance). I think Ann wrote about this when she said Knards were less bouncy than more normal tires. "They just soak up the bumps" (or something close to that). If that is what you are interested in, I think you need to try a fat bike on the kind of terrain you like to find out if its the thing for you. I doubt that the difference between a 2.1 tire and a 2.35 tire amounts to much in this respect, but I don't use tires wider than about 2" so what do I know. On Sunday, January 5, 2014 2:24:21 AM UTC-8, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > The geometry charts are interesting. The two smaller sizes list 26 x 2.35" > as the max tire, but they didn't carry that MTB sizing over to the 700, > which has a max of 55cm (actual, I presume). So, 2.25 = 57 mm nominal size, > thus presumably smaller actual size so it just physically fits. But then > you account for clearance of mud and rocks and duff on the trail 2.1 is the > practicable clearance (I had a long conversation with Kevin at Riv. to > understand this.). And the tightest spot is the width of the chain stays, > so even the potential allure of 650b conversion doesn't help. Of course, > larger than 2.1 may be more bounce than I can handle anyway, so it may all > be academic for me. > > With abandon, > Patrick > > On Saturday, January 4, 2014 1:27:31 PM UTC-7, Deacon Patrick wrote: >> >> My selfish motivation is to get the fattest tire I can on my existing >> Hunqapillar, which is a fancy paint (aka first generation) Hunqapillar, >> which apparently has less clearance than the newer, green Hunqas. >> >> With the 2.1” Smart Sams I just put on I have a solid amount of >> clearance, and I would love to see how much clearance there is with 29 x >> 2.25” Smart Sams on a first gen Hunqa. I’d also love to see how much more >> clearance the new Hunqas have. >> >> Would someone mind taking some clearance shots of the three clearance >> spots please? >> >> With abandon, >> Patrick >> >> *www.MindYourHeadCoop.org <http://www.MindYourHeadCoop.org>* >> *www.OurHolyConception.org <http://www.OurHolyConception.org>* >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
