3 ms·
One and only issue is the rim width. There must be some limits how fat tire you can put on a narrow rim and vice versa? But usually everything goes. On a backc
by timonoko 5y ago
One and only issue is the rim width. There must be some limits how fat tire you can put on a narrow rim and vice versa?
But usually everything goes. On a backcountry tour 23-622 on front and 47-622 on back works best, because you dont want the bike to be front-heavy.
- timonoko 5y agoApropos: Mericans would then say I have "700c" or "28 inch" in front and "29 inch" in back.
- mauvehaus 5y agoYes, but like I said, if it isn't obviously wrong, it's probably close enough to work. I've put 35-559 and 54-559 on the same generic mountain bike rims. They both worked. My road bike has 25-622 in the front and 28-622 in the back because a little more padding under my ass is pretty welcome at the end of a long day. I'll note that if you run radically different widths (and by extension heights), you'll likely find that you need to change the saddle angle to keep your weight on the parts of your body the can support it comfortably.
- PascLeRasc 5y agoI can't imagine that the speed gain from a narrow non-driving wheel with less weight on it is worth the added danger on descents. Your front tire will wash out way before the rear starts to slide with that much different in traction.
- timonoko 5y agoYou need fat on back because heavy load is there. Otherwise both would be skinny. Situation is different nowadays when there are also easy rolling fat tires. In olden times 47-622 was always just very knoppy. I soloed the Alaska Hiway with this arangement in 1987. In olden times you also had to be very careful with the back axle. Until Shimano improved the design.