RADBMX.CO.UK
Old School BMX 1980 - 1988 => Old School Race (riders ready, pedals ready... GO!!) => Topic started by: Sanmarcopizza on August 05, 2008, 06:38 AM
-
Queue the double entendres.
I have just picked up a bike with 2.125 front and back, but haven't tried it yet. Is there something intrinsically wrong (other than them being Max Daddies) e.g. will I lose all feeling in my rear end. or possibly some drive? I know that some modern bikes have moved up from 1.75 rears to 1.85 or 1.95. Your thoughts please.
-
I'm no expert, but fatter should give more grip, but offers higher resistence when pedalling, which is probably why most seem to be going for fatties in front so save understeer in berm warfare but stick to thinner from behind to give better drive.
I'm stuck in the eighties and believe in 1.75's alround, as long as got decent grip shouldn't be too much of a handful, even at 14 stone.
General rule of thumb, keep the fatties where you can see what they're doing, and do the skinnies up the rear end.
-
Nice reply Magoo. I have a few stone on you (currently 17 down from 20.5), so have always insisted on 2.125 on the front.
Any others care to comment?
-
i think Mr Magoo has got it pretty much spot on. i think the fatty up front helps to stop the front end slipping out a little more and the skinny out back helps to cut through the dusty gravel and get the power down more??
well that's my theory anyways :daumenhoch:
-
I have to say I've never liked fatties so do the skinnies at the front and and of course the rear.
-
Weight is not a problem, as long as wheel is built solidly and tyres inflated properly, although i recently found my nipples sticking through my rim tape, joint effort of extremely cheap wheels from bankrupt stock, mountainbike rim tape cut down to fit, and jumping way to high onto a flat surface at skate park....
wouldn't have thought size/weight would make too much difference on back end cornering traction either, as there was a period when i was thirteen where we all used to race on skinnies, 1.125 if i remember and got plenty of grip in corners, thats when everybody took physics at school i think, trading off drag/friction/drive...... never had a problem running them and getting grip.....
what i did have a problem with was coming down from outta space at Hayes national i think it was, back wheel folded in two, sent me flying backwards into an unprotected floodlight stand, giving me quite nasty back injury, which i still suffer with today.
so just go with what makes you happy, if thats two fatties....let 'em have it!!
-
Have to say when I run a fat tyre on the rear it seems to grip less! Seems to sorta bulge over and twist a little, but doesn't happen with a thinner tyre.
Might only be me though.
-
Some men would be grateful to ride two fatties!!! ;)
-
Some men would be grateful to ride two fatties!!! ;)
:LolLolLolLol:
Lenny Henry likes to ride a FATTY !! :D
-
(currently 17 down from 20.5)
Fat lardy b****** Sandro!! Forget the fat tyre on the back, it just LOOKS wrong!! And I bet it plays havoc with rollout unless the gearing has been changed too; bet it hasn't!! My personal preference is 1.95 on front and 1.75 rear but that's just my preference because it LOOKS right. I think for all the reasons mentioned earlier it makes sense to have a skinny one up the back :D Humps
-
Humps, I always was that kind of weight when you used to see me, I just hid it well. I am like at stick now. LOL
Well I wasn't too impressed with having it super fat at the front either. The bars are a bit narrower than suites my width, and coupled with the 2.125 (yeah right, how do they measure them at that) Max Daddy the bike tracked where the hell it wanted to go. Had no confidence. The back because of its width started to catch the chain stays when leant over. Think they will be changed for a set of Comp III's. Will need to use the humps patented wooden dowel extensions for the bars.
-
Will need to use the humps patented wooden dowel extensions for the bars.
How very dare you!! Just buy some 28"ers you cheapskate!! ;) Humps