It Finally Happened! (With WTB Bailiff News)

8:30am, Tuesday, January 8th, 2024

 The warnings were all over the airwaves starting Sunday and into Monday. We were finally going to get a significant snow event. The weather people were saying we'd see anywhere from 5" - 9" of snow. By 7:00am we already had 6+ inches and it was snowing heavily. We ended up with a record one-day snow total of 10.5" for that day.

I'm not complaining. First of all, we need moisture here in Iowa. We are still in a drought and anything we get is welcomed in terms of precipitation. Secondly, fat biking! This amount of snow should pack in and be groom-able. In fact, my testing out of the initial snow layer we got showed great packable snow and a higher moisture content which should show up as a great base layer. 

By the way this snow is acting in the wind, I'd say that it might just prove to be some of the best riding snow we've seen. but time will tell on that front. 

Thirdly - This makes the cold weather worthwhile, in my eyes anyway. Because if it is just too darn cold to ride in the country without snow, it just makes life miserable - for me - and it is not very fun. But add in snow? My attitude changes 180 degrees. 

Plus, all that white snow just makes everything look better. Again, maybe that's just me. But a drab, grey and brown scene is harder to draw any uplifting inspiration from to brighten my day. So, this snow is awesome, and Winter finally looks the part. 

The new WTB Bailiff tire in 27.5 X 4.5" (image courtesy of WTB)

WTB Finally Makes A Fat Bike Tire:

Yesterday news broke concerning a new fat bike tire from WTB. They are offering the new tire as a 4.5" X 27.5" diameter only tire at this time.

The new tire, called the Bailiff, comes in a studded or non-studded versions with studd-able pockets molded in. These accept any Terrene or 45NRTH studs. 

The rubber compound is designed for grip in cold weather conditions, so it is a softer compound. TCS ready means these are tubeless ready tires. Prices are $134.95 for the non-studded and $279.95 for the studded version. (Prices for one tire only)

You can read more about these HERE on WTB's site. 

Comments: Wow! I recall asking about fat bike tires probably ten years ago from my WTB contacts and they weren't real interested in them at that point. Apparently more pressure was brought to bear from some "Canadian bike partners" and so WTB went into development with some testers in Vermont to come up with this tire "after several revisions". 

"Bike partners" means "OEM spec", and so I would be looking for new fat bikes coming out with WTB branded Bailiff tires soon. I suspect that since the "amazing bike partners" were only interested in 27.5" diameter tires that this is why WTB is not offering a 26"er version. 

Question: If I told you this tire was a 45NRTH tire, would you have believed me? I think the design is very derivative of a 45NRTH Wrathlord tire, but maybe I'm not seeing that correctly.... Anyway. Too bad there isn't a 26"er version. I might have tried those on my fat bikes. 

One last note: WTB sells these Bailiff tires saying they are TCS compatible, but their own TCS sealant is not rated for temperatures that fat bikes often see. Kinda weird..... Their is always Orange Seal Sub-Zero.

Fat Bikes: An Explanation For The Curious

 The other day in the comments section I got a question about fat bikes in general which prompted me to publish this post. The question I got was prompted when a reader of the blog noted that I made distinctions between capabilities of my three fat bikes. This was something I discovered some time ago, and realizing that not all fat bikes are created equal was why I commented as such in the post. The question then, distilled down to its elemental basics, was , "What are the characteristics and differences between various fat bikes?"

I will attempt to answer this question based upon my experiences over the past nearly 10 years of riding these things. Plus, I have a reference series I wrote in 2016 on this very subject which I will link to at the end. So, here goes......

The Snow Dog during a ride back in January of 2011.

The earliest complete fat bikes which were available were based upon what had come before which was an evolution from 26" mountain bikes of the 1990's. The geometry of those days informed the earliest forms of fat bikes and the Surly Pugsley of 2005 was pretty much following in the footsteps of those early pioneering efforts. The main focus of design was endurance and expedition. The bikes then reflected these traits. Racing (in the XC MTB sense anyway), mountain biking, and other uses of fat bikes weren't ever a consideration then.

The primary limiting forces on design in those days were tires, rims, and the perceived need to accommodate triple crank drive train capability to preserve a wide range of gearing. Since these driving forces were what informed the complete fat bikes that appeared out of Salsa Cycles in 2011, the same that had also influenced the Pugsley, it meant that we had inherited the same limitations on tire/rim sizes and in regard to what was thought in terms of drive train needs. 

For instance, the Mukluk which debuted late in 2010 had a triple ring crank, front derailleur, of course, and a fairly limited rear tire clearance. Not that you could get a tire to fit to max out clearances, because the new Larry tire was only a 3.8" wide tire. (Most probably the Big Fat Larry was already on the drawing board by this time, which would max out tire clearances on the OG Mukluk) So, why weren't these bikes future-proofed? Surely by 2010 it was becoming a thing for mountain bikes to have 2X drive trains, for instance, which would have allowed for even wider tires in the future. Right? 

Well, of course it was, but what wasn't anticipated was that fat bike demand would be so ravenous that bikes couldn't be made fast enough to satisfied demand. Now this necessitates a look at the business side of things circa 2010/2011. This period of time was when the whole 29"er craze had all come to a head and those crazy days of increasing sales from 2007-2009-ish were slowing down. The economic downturn of 2008 had affected the economy as well, so bicycle dealers and brands were looking for the "next big thing". The 650B based, long travel mountain bike scene, (yet to be dubbed "Enduro®") was just getting going, and that was one band wagon brands were jumping ship to for sure, but this Winter-time craze of riding corpulent sized tires in snow was something entirely new. Salsa and Surly dealers, who normally would have been shedding dollars in the off-season, now had a product that was flying out the doors. And this did not go unnoticed.....

One of two prototype test bikes Salsa Cycles had made to develop the Mukluk. Seen here at Interbike 2011.

Remember, manufacturers and brands were looking for the next trend and were not about to be left behind as many were when 29"ers took off. So, seeing the success of Salsa Cycles and Surly, the R&D to bring new fat bikes to market leapt into action. By 2012 there were so many more fat bikes out, or coming soon, that you could not keep track of it all. This in turn pushed innovators to dream 'bigger', and the fat bike pioneers, mainly Alaskan brands like Fat Back and 9-Zero-7, saw a way to keep one step ahead of things and pushed the 150mm front/197mm rear standard. This allowed for 100mm rims and the widest tires, (at the time 4.7" wide) and still have plenty of clearance. The single front chain ring pretty quickly took over as well as this eliminated the complexity, weight, and snow/mud clogging of front derailleurs and shifters. Limitations that Salsa and Surly accepted due to what was available and due to perceived demand previous to 2011 were now being swept aside.

Flotation was the name of the game, and if you wanted to traverse the deepest snow, cruise marshy, wet lands, or go where there was no single track at all, but just deer trails or the natural forest/wood floors, these big, fat tired monstrosities were the thing. But not everyone wanted or needed that. Fat bikes soon also became mountain bikes, bike packing bikes, and even full suspension and racing bikes. Heck, people were using them at gravel road events and fat bike categories soon popped up at many gravel events. 

So, now days you have to figure out what it is that you want from your fat bike. Expedition? Cargo? Racing? Cruising trails? A way to get outside and stay fit in Winter? There are a bunch of ways to tackle any of these desires. To that end, I wrote a four part series in 2016 to help you choose a fat bike that is right for you. Much of what I wrote then is still true today with the possible exception of full-suspension fat bikes, which have tailed off in availability in the last few years. (Used examples are still coming up for sale all the time though) Also, the Cargo/Bikepacking fat bikes, like Surly's Big Fat Dummy or Salsa Cycles current Blackborow are not covered as they didn't exist yet. So, here's the series if you want to check it out:

How To Choose Your First Fat Bike: Introduction

How To Choose Your First Fat Bike: What To Look For

How To Choose Your First Fat Bike: Types Of Fat Bikes

How To Choose Your First Fat Bike: Or Something Else!

The cargo category of fat bike started with Surly's Big Fat Dummy

Since I didn't cover cargo fat bikes in my original series, I will say a word or two here. First of all, these rigs are huge. You need to consider storage space, transporting such rigs, and whether or not you'll really need one. The Salsa Blackborow is a bit more manageable in these regards, but it still is a longtail bike. These aren't necessarily your first fat bike, but for the right conditions and for the right person, this type of rig could prove invaluable.

Then as I re-read the series I noted that I mentioned a few things about tires and wheels, which I never really detailed. So, following are some differences with regard to wheels, rim widths, tires, and a word about axle standards.

Some fat bike tires, like this Terrene Wazia, are stud-able.

Wheels for fat bikes are defined by diameter and the width of the rim. A more trail worthy, more XC MTB type fat bike would have a narrower rim. 70mm-80mm would be in that category. Expedition type fat bikes which require more flotation would have wheels with wider rims to help spread out tires and give better stability at super low pressures. 90mm-100mm rims are in that category. There is some cross-over with some folks using 80mm rims for their lighter weight as expedition category rims, but wider is typically better for flotation. Go narrower for more of a MTB experience. 

Diameter can be either 26" or 27.5". The 27.5" size is a newer standard and it is said that you don't need quite as wide a tire or rim to get similar flotation results as you can with the wider 26" based stuff. I've never tried the 27.5" stuff, so take that with a grain of salt. 

Tires can be 3.8-4.2" which would be best with older fat bikes, fat bikes used for MTB, or gravel riding. 4.5"-5+ inch tires are getting into that max flotation, expedition, go anywhere category. Studded tires exist, but are really expensive. I'm not a huge fan of studded tires, but some people cannot live without them. You have to decide for yourself there. Don't ask me because I'll probably never do a studded fat bike tire. It's just not my jam. Prices for fat bike tires are anywhere from a little under 100 bucks to close to 200 bucks a pop. Expect to spend more like 200-250 for a single studded fat bike tire that is worth its salt. 

Axle widths are almost always the 197R/150FRT standard now, but 150frt/177 rear is also somewhat of a thing yet. Older bikes are quick release, may have weird brake standards, and vary in axle standards quite a bit from modern bikes, so beware in the used market should you decide to go that way. You may get stuck with an outdated fat bike wheel set standard.

And with that I will end this rambling post. If you all have comments or further questions, I'd be glad to entertain those in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Fat Bikes: An Explanation For The Curious

 The other day in the comments section I got a question about fat bikes in general which prompted me to publish this post. The question I got was prompted when a reader of the blog noted that I made distinctions between capabilities of my three fat bikes. This was something I discovered some time ago, and realizing that not all fat bikes are created equal was why I commented as such in the post. The question then, distilled down to its elemental basics, was , "What are the characteristics and differences between various fat bikes?"

I will attempt to answer this question based upon my experiences over the past nearly 10 years of riding these things. Plus, I have a reference series I wrote in 2016 on this very subject which I will link to at the end. So, here goes......

The Snow Dog during a ride back in January of 2011.

The earliest complete fat bikes which were available were based upon what had come before which was an evolution from 26" mountain bikes of the 1990's. The geometry of those days informed the earliest forms of fat bikes and the Surly Pugsley of 2005 was pretty much following in the footsteps of those early pioneering efforts. The main focus of design was endurance and expedition. The bikes then reflected these traits. Racing (in the XC MTB sense anyway), mountain biking, and other uses of fat bikes weren't ever a consideration then.

The primary limiting forces on design in those days were tires, rims, and the perceived need to accommodate triple crank drive train capability to preserve a wide range of gearing. Since these driving forces were what informed the complete fat bikes that appeared out of Salsa Cycles in 2011, the same that had also influenced the Pugsley, it meant that we had inherited the same limitations on tire/rim sizes and in regard to what was thought in terms of drive train needs. 

For instance, the Mukluk which debuted late in 2010 had a triple ring crank, front derailleur, of course, and a fairly limited rear tire clearance. Not that you could get a tire to fit to max out clearances, because the new Larry tire was only a 3.8" wide tire. (Most probably the Big Fat Larry was already on the drawing board by this time, which would max out tire clearances on the OG Mukluk) So, why weren't these bikes future-proofed? Surely by 2010 it was becoming a thing for mountain bikes to have 2X drive trains, for instance, which would have allowed for even wider tires in the future. Right? 

Well, of course it was, but what wasn't anticipated was that fat bike demand would be so ravenous that bikes couldn't be made fast enough to satisfied demand. Now this necessitates a look at the business side of things circa 2010/2011. This period of time was when the whole 29"er craze had all come to a head and those crazy days of increasing sales from 2007-2009-ish were slowing down. The economic downturn of 2008 had affected the economy as well, so bicycle dealers and brands were looking for the "next big thing". The 650B based, long travel mountain bike scene, (yet to be dubbed "Enduro®") was just getting going, and that was one band wagon brands were jumping ship to for sure, but this Winter-time craze of riding corpulent sized tires in snow was something entirely new. Salsa and Surly dealers, who normally would have been shedding dollars in the off-season, now had a product that was flying out the doors. And this did not go unnoticed.....

One of two prototype test bikes Salsa Cycles had made to develop the Mukluk. Seen here at Interbike 2011.

Remember, manufacturers and brands were looking for the next trend and were not about to be left behind as many were when 29"ers took off. So, seeing the success of Salsa Cycles and Surly, the R&D to bring new fat bikes to market leapt into action. By 2012 there were so many more fat bikes out, or coming soon, that you could not keep track of it all. This in turn pushed innovators to dream 'bigger', and the fat bike pioneers, mainly Alaskan brands like Fat Back and 9-Zero-7, saw a way to keep one step ahead of things and pushed the 150mm front/197mm rear standard. This allowed for 100mm rims and the widest tires, (at the time 4.7" wide) and still have plenty of clearance. The single front chain ring pretty quickly took over as well as this eliminated the complexity, weight, and snow/mud clogging of front derailleurs and shifters. Limitations that Salsa and Surly accepted due to what was available and due to perceived demand previous to 2011 were now being swept aside.

Flotation was the name of the game, and if you wanted to traverse the deepest snow, cruise marshy, wet lands, or go where there was no single track at all, but just deer trails or the natural forest/wood floors, these big, fat tired monstrosities were the thing. But not everyone wanted or needed that. Fat bikes soon also became mountain bikes, bike packing bikes, and even full suspension and racing bikes. Heck, people were using them at gravel road events and fat bike categories soon popped up at many gravel events. 

So, now days you have to figure out what it is that you want from your fat bike. Expedition? Cargo? Racing? Cruising trails? A way to get outside and stay fit in Winter? There are a bunch of ways to tackle any of these desires. To that end, I wrote a four part series in 2016 to help you choose a fat bike that is right for you. Much of what I wrote then is still true today with the possible exception of full-suspension fat bikes, which have tailed off in availability in the last few years. (Used examples are still coming up for sale all the time though) Also, the Cargo/Bikepacking fat bikes, like Surly's Big Fat Dummy or Salsa Cycles current Blackborow are not covered as they didn't exist yet. So, here's the series if you want to check it out:

How To Choose Your First Fat Bike: Introduction

How To Choose Your First Fat Bike: What To Look For

How To Choose Your First Fat Bike: Types Of Fat Bikes

How To Choose Your First Fat Bike: Or Something Else!

The cargo category of fat bike started with Surly's Big Fat Dummy

Since I didn't cover cargo fat bikes in my original series, I will say a word or two here. First of all, these rigs are huge. You need to consider storage space, transporting such rigs, and whether or not you'll really need one. The Salsa Blackborow is a bit more manageable in these regards, but it still is a longtail bike. These aren't necessarily your first fat bike, but for the right conditions and for the right person, this type of rig could prove invaluable.

Then as I re-read the series I noted that I mentioned a few things about tires and wheels, which I never really detailed. So, following are some differences with regard to wheels, rim widths, tires, and a word about axle standards.

Some fat bike tires, like this Terrene Wazia, are stud-able.

Wheels for fat bikes are defined by diameter and the width of the rim. A more trail worthy, more XC MTB type fat bike would have a narrower rim. 70mm-80mm would be in that category. Expedition type fat bikes which require more flotation would have wheels with wider rims to help spread out tires and give better stability at super low pressures. 90mm-100mm rims are in that category. There is some cross-over with some folks using 80mm rims for their lighter weight as expedition category rims, but wider is typically better for flotation. Go narrower for more of a MTB experience. 

Diameter can be either 26" or 27.5". The 27.5" size is a newer standard and it is said that you don't need quite as wide a tire or rim to get similar flotation results as you can with the wider 26" based stuff. I've never tried the 27.5" stuff, so take that with a grain of salt. 

Tires can be 3.8-4.2" which would be best with older fat bikes, fat bikes used for MTB, or gravel riding. 4.5"-5+ inch tires are getting into that max flotation, expedition, go anywhere category. Studded tires exist, but are really expensive. I'm not a huge fan of studded tires, but some people cannot live without them. You have to decide for yourself there. Don't ask me because I'll probably never do a studded fat bike tire. It's just not my jam. Prices for fat bike tires are anywhere from a little under 100 bucks to close to 200 bucks a pop. Expect to spend more like 200-250 for a single studded fat bike tire that is worth its salt. 

Axle widths are almost always the 197R/150FRT standard now, but 150frt/177 rear is also somewhat of a thing yet. Older bikes are quick release, may have weird brake standards, and vary in axle standards quite a bit from modern bikes, so beware in the used market should you decide to go that way. You may get stuck with an outdated fat bike wheel set standard.

And with that I will end this rambling post. If you all have comments or further questions, I'd be glad to entertain those in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Friday News And Views

Just what is it that lurks down in the Lab?

So Far......So Good:

The project I have been working on throughout the week has been taking shape quite nicely. I have one major component and a tool to get in which are necessary for me to go any further. In fact, I will be looking at completion of this project once those bits arrive.

Of course, I am speaking of the aforementioned Noble Bikes GX5 and the 1X GRX group I am fitting to it. Things have been going well so far with this build and I think it is turning out better than I had hoped.

The biggest issue could have been the brakes. The way Shimano ships the pieces means you have to connect the caliper/hose assembly at the lever, both of which are filled with mineral oil and sealed at the factory for air-tight delivery. Your job, should you accept it, is to connect the two without introducing any air into the system and avoid having to bleed the brakes. Oh yes.....and you will have to cut the brake lines to length as well.

So, interestingly, Shimano has developed a new way to do this job, and with one tip I picked up on the Shimano tech site, the job is actually pretty easy. Well, you could use a third hand, by the way, but it isn't hard beyond juggling a few things at once. It also helps if you have proper tools too.

Anyway, Shimano pre-installs the 'olive' and the compression nut is already partially threaded into the lever body. There is a yellow plug in the back of the lever where the hose should enter into the lever. Cutting your hose to length is an easy process if you have the Shimano guide. Install the barb into the hose. Then remove the yellow plug, (it comes out sort of hard, so be careful!) and then shove the hose up in there, tighten the compression nut with an 8mm open end wrench, and done! Of course, there are little details that make this job easier and successful that you absolutely need to know, but this isn't a tutorial. Just letting you know that "big, bad Shimano" actually does do some neat things.

When the bike is finished I will do a full post on it. Stay tuned.

"Lube-Off" Nears Completion:

I finished up my six hours on the second bike for the "Lube-Off" recently. That leaves one bike to go and then the full results of the test will be revealed. I have had to pick and choose my days as we have had a spate of wet weather which isn't conducive to testing "dry" lubricants. I figured the rains would kick in once I started this testing! Figures.......

Anyway....... Past editions of this test were easy to judge. The different lubricants were so........well- different, that I had no trouble at all telling you readers which was the best. It was, as they say, "no contest". However; this round has proven to be very competitive. The three lubricants I am testing now I can recommend without hesitation, so I will let that cat outta the bag right away. That said, there are differences, and I think once I detail out the findings, a more clear picture will be revealed which might help you choose what is best for your needs. That's my goal with this, anyway.

So, I am hoping that we do not get anymore rainy days and that things get dry again. We just got a soaking rain Wednesday night, so maybe this weekend will be dry again and I can put a big dent into the final round of this "Lube-Off".

 Skin Wall Fatties:

I'm a sucker for skin wall tires because I like the look. It isn't for everybody, and that's fine. I happen to think it is cool. I have a few sets I run on gravel bikes and mountain bikes. But fat bikes? That wasn't much of an option.

Back when the Pugsley first came out, the only fat bike tire you could buy was a skin wall Endomorph. That didn't last long and then almost everything afterward was black. 100% black. Surly did a special run of Nates in skin wall, but if you like Nates, you are an oddball. They are, perhaps, one of the worst rolling fat bike tires ever made by surly, and they rank right up there in overall stature in the fat bike world in that regard as well. So, while I could have gotten my hands on Nate skin walls.......no thank you!

Now I see that 45NRTH has skin wall VanHelga tires. They probably roll a little better than a Nate, and they are tubeless ready. Yeah! According to what I have seen online, they are sub-100 bucks each. Not bad. Yes, you cannot get the 120TPI ones, 'cause those are black only, but 60TPI ain't bad. Nope.

So, will I be getting some? Probably not. I have cake eaters that I bought this past Summer, and I have Flow and Dunder from the Beist family which came on the Ti Muk when I got it. So, I am set for tires for the time being. But, maybe someday........

That's it for this week. Stay warm by riding outside!

Friday News And Views

Just what is it that lurks down in the Lab?

So Far......So Good:

The project I have been working on throughout the week has been taking shape quite nicely. I have one major component and a tool to get in which are necessary for me to go any further. In fact, I will be looking at completion of this project once those bits arrive.

Of course, I am speaking of the aforementioned Noble Bikes GX5 and the 1X GRX group I am fitting to it. Things have been going well so far with this build and I think it is turning out better than I had hoped.

The biggest issue could have been the brakes. The way Shimano ships the pieces means you have to connect the caliper/hose assembly at the lever, both of which are filled with mineral oil and sealed at the factory for air-tight delivery. Your job, should you accept it, is to connect the two without introducing any air into the system and avoid having to bleed the brakes. Oh yes.....and you will have to cut the brake lines to length as well.

So, interestingly, Shimano has developed a new way to do this job, and with one tip I picked up on the Shimano tech site, the job is actually pretty easy. Well, you could use a third hand, by the way, but it isn't hard beyond juggling a few things at once. It also helps if you have proper tools too.

Anyway, Shimano pre-installs the 'olive' and the compression nut is already partially threaded into the lever body. There is a yellow plug in the back of the lever where the hose should enter into the lever. Cutting your hose to length is an easy process if you have the Shimano guide. Install the barb into the hose. Then remove the yellow plug, (it comes out sort of hard, so be careful!) and then shove the hose up in there, tighten the compression nut with an 8mm open end wrench, and done! Of course, there are little details that make this job easier and successful that you absolutely need to know, but this isn't a tutorial. Just letting you know that "big, bad Shimano" actually does do some neat things.

When the bike is finished I will do a full post on it. Stay tuned.

"Lube-Off" Nears Completion:

I finished up my six hours on the second bike for the "Lube-Off" recently. That leaves one bike to go and then the full results of the test will be revealed. I have had to pick and choose my days as we have had a spate of wet weather which isn't conducive to testing "dry" lubricants. I figured the rains would kick in once I started this testing! Figures.......

Anyway....... Past editions of this test were easy to judge. The different lubricants were so........well- different, that I had no trouble at all telling you readers which was the best. It was, as they say, "no contest". However; this round has proven to be very competitive. The three lubricants I am testing now I can recommend without hesitation, so I will let that cat outta the bag right away. That said, there are differences, and I think once I detail out the findings, a more clear picture will be revealed which might help you choose what is best for your needs. That's my goal with this, anyway.

So, I am hoping that we do not get anymore rainy days and that things get dry again. We just got a soaking rain Wednesday night, so maybe this weekend will be dry again and I can put a big dent into the final round of this "Lube-Off".

 Skin Wall Fatties:

I'm a sucker for skin wall tires because I like the look. It isn't for everybody, and that's fine. I happen to think it is cool. I have a few sets I run on gravel bikes and mountain bikes. But fat bikes? That wasn't much of an option.

Back when the Pugsley first came out, the only fat bike tire you could buy was a skin wall Endomorph. That didn't last long and then almost everything afterward was black. 100% black. Surly did a special run of Nates in skin wall, but if you like Nates, you are an oddball. They are, perhaps, one of the worst rolling fat bike tires ever made by surly, and they rank right up there in overall stature in the fat bike world in that regard as well. So, while I could have gotten my hands on Nate skin walls.......no thank you!

Now I see that 45NRTH has skin wall VanHelga tires. They probably roll a little better than a Nate, and they are tubeless ready. Yeah! According to what I have seen online, they are sub-100 bucks each. Not bad. Yes, you cannot get the 120TPI ones, 'cause those are black only, but 60TPI ain't bad. Nope.

So, will I be getting some? Probably not. I have cake eaters that I bought this past Summer, and I have Flow and Dunder from the Beist family which came on the Ti Muk when I got it. So, I am set for tires for the time being. But, maybe someday........

That's it for this week. Stay warm by riding outside!

Tires I Like

Some tires, like these Vittoria Terreno Mix tires, are just plain weird.

Saturday I posted an article on Riding Gravel which was about the top gravel tires I like that are available currently. You can check that out here.

To be completely honest, most tires are pretty decent. It would be a lot easier to talk about tires that are weird, aren't very good, or just downright bad. There are fewer of those than there are tires that are so-so, and definitely fewer of those than good, decent tires.

But I am talking about aftermarket performance tires in that regard, mind you. Not the ubiquitous "replacement tire", or the cheapo tires used on "mart bikes", or tires meant for entry level bike shop bikes. Those are mostly terrible tires. No, I'm talking about tires that purport to be performance enhancing, but for whatever reason, weren't. Tires costing more than $35.00-$40.00 dollars, typically.

Those tires, in my opinion, are tires that fell short of promises and performance was lacking. But enough about those tires. I don't like them, and that isn't what this post is about. This is about tires I like. Some were listed in that post linked above. Others are not there because they are not gravel tires.

Surly Lou's are nice. I like them a lot.

There are a lot of mountain bike tires I like, or used to like since maybe you cannot get them anymore. Tires from Michelin, the "Wildgripper" series of tires, those were great tires. The GEAX tires were all mostly pretty decent, and Bontrager made some killer tires, but many of these are no longer available.

I guess I still like the ol' Nanoraptor, or as WTB calls it now, the "Nano". It does a lot of things well. The Bontrager brand still is rolling out some great stuff. Maxxis, Specialized, and others do some fine treads.

Fat bike tires, now there is some weird stuff going on there! I'll tell ya that for flotation and traction that I look for, the Surly Bud and Lou are hard to beat. Yeah, yeah.......they aren't tubeless. Okay, that isn't a huge deal to me. While having a Bud or Lou tubeless might be better, I just don't have the time to maintain that set up by keeping the sealant up to date. My fat bikes see such limited use that having them set up tubeless would be a liability more than a benefit. My fat bikes can sit around for months at a time unused, so when I do want to use one, I don't want to have to dink around refreshing the sealant.

On the other hand, if a gravel tire model comes out and it is not rated for tubeless, it is not going to be a tire I like. I insist on running tubeless on gravel anymore. It makes a big difference in ride quality, not to mention the elimination of pinch flats.  So, there are some gravel tire models I don't like for that reason. Tires like Challenge's Gravel Grinder, which would be a stellar tread pattern if it could be used tubeless.

So, there are a lot of tires I like, and I've been fortunate to have tried many so I know.

Tires I Like

Some tires, like these Vittoria Terreno Mix tires, are just plain weird.

Saturday I posted an article on Riding Gravel which was about the top gravel tires I like that are available currently. You can check that out here.

To be completely honest, most tires are pretty decent. It would be a lot easier to talk about tires that are weird, aren't very good, or just downright bad. There are fewer of those than there are tires that are so-so, and definitely fewer of those than good, decent tires.

But I am talking about aftermarket performance tires in that regard, mind you. Not the ubiquitous "replacement tire", or the cheapo tires used on "mart bikes", or tires meant for entry level bike shop bikes. Those are mostly terrible tires. No, I'm talking about tires that purport to be performance enhancing, but for whatever reason, weren't. Tires costing more than $35.00-$40.00 dollars, typically.

Those tires, in my opinion, are tires that fell short of promises and performance was lacking. But enough about those tires. I don't like them, and that isn't what this post is about. This is about tires I like. Some were listed in that post linked above. Others are not there because they are not gravel tires.

Surly Lou's are nice. I like them a lot.

There are a lot of mountain bike tires I like, or used to like since maybe you cannot get them anymore. Tires from Michelin, the "Wildgripper" series of tires, those were great tires. The GEAX tires were all mostly pretty decent, and Bontrager made some killer tires, but many of these are no longer available.

I guess I still like the ol' Nanoraptor, or as WTB calls it now, the "Nano". It does a lot of things well. The Bontrager brand still is rolling out some great stuff. Maxxis, Specialized, and others do some fine treads.

Fat bike tires, now there is some weird stuff going on there! I'll tell ya that for flotation and traction that I look for, the Surly Bud and Lou are hard to beat. Yeah, yeah.......they aren't tubeless. Okay, that isn't a huge deal to me. While having a Bud or Lou tubeless might be better, I just don't have the time to maintain that set up by keeping the sealant up to date. My fat bikes see such limited use that having them set up tubeless would be a liability more than a benefit. My fat bikes can sit around for months at a time unused, so when I do want to use one, I don't want to have to dink around refreshing the sealant.

On the other hand, if a gravel tire model comes out and it is not rated for tubeless, it is not going to be a tire I like. I insist on running tubeless on gravel anymore. It makes a big difference in ride quality, not to mention the elimination of pinch flats.  So, there are some gravel tire models I don't like for that reason. Tires like Challenge's Gravel Grinder, which would be a stellar tread pattern if it could be used tubeless.

So, there are a lot of tires I like, and I've been fortunate to have tried many so I know.