Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:34 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:17 am 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 8436
Location: Oh Canada!
I believe BITD, ppl rode (do ppl still do this?) wider front tyres and narrower rear tyres. Can someone explain why one would do this? What benefit is there? And is this done only in certain riding conditions?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:21 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:21 am
Posts: 794
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Little bit less rolling resistance (debatable), little lighter rear rotating assembly, maximise front end grip (not as necessary on the back), bit more 'bag' volume on the front with rigid or short travel forks.

Really not much different to running a shallow treaded rear, specific tread patterns etc just achieved through width.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:21 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16748
Location: Yorkshire, England
Smoke Lites are narrower than most tyres.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:48 am 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 6:42 am
Posts: 1524
Location: Mostly West Midlands
Clearence between the chainstays may have been a factor - my '91 Fire Mountain ran a fatter front tyre than rear (2.1 vs 2.0 from memory), though it looked more different than that. Still managed to "polish" the paint off the inside of the chain stays with mud etc. a much tyre would have just made the situation worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:33 am 
Devout Dirtbag

Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:52 am
Posts: 149
More cushioning on the front would be the main reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:52 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 4309
Location: In trubble'fsumthin r'uther....North Warwickshire
Yeah, I did this bitd.......I felt faster on a narrow rear tyre, and used the bigger front in place of a flex stem.......

......jet black smoke lites looked the business didn't they?......I was always a slave to form over function!......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:06 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:14 am
Posts: 1871
Location: Kuranda DH circa 1991
i sill do it. 2.35 beef on the front, 2.1 on the rear. why? the front wheel is the one that gets ridden. by that i mean all the cornering and braking. the rear just supplies the power and follows the front. i lean hard on my front in corners, the tracks i ride are dry dusty and loose singletack. i need a tyre that grips hard in that stuff,and i find my riding improves if i have a decent moto tyre up front.

(btw this is referring to my modern bike. my vintage bikes i ride not as agressively, they just have same 1.9s front and rear)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:33 pm 
East Midlands Deputy AEC
East Midlands Deputy AEC
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:39 pm
Posts: 2028
Location: Ashby-de-la-Zouch
As Ted C says above. My Cindercone came with 2.1 front and 2.0 rear. The rear had very little clearance from the chainstays when dry, and nothing when covered in Leicestershire clay. The Kona rear tyre (Propulsion) was useless in anything other than dry conditions so I changed to a Smoke Lite 1.9. Complete transformation, grip, clearance, better mud-shedding and therefore substantially lighter than a mud-packed bigger tyre. The larger front seems to give better damping and directional stability particularly in sand and gravel (the other Leicestershire component).
I've stuck with this tyre size combination over the years even with bikes where rear clearance isn't an issue. I suppose when you find something that works you tend to stick with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:53 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:33 am
Posts: 1249
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
My thinking has always been big grippy front tyre to get the bike hooked into the corner and the rear will follow. As for a skinny rear tyre a lot of it was down to clearance of the chainstays,tyre rub/mud build up etc on my bikes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:24 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:21 am
Posts: 794
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
IMO bikes turn in better with a wider front, the rear tracks around to follow more naturally.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], james1985, MSNbot Media, shogun, Smithjss70, Tc, themountie and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group