We recieve questions and e-mails all the time from our e-mail link on the right of this page. This recent e-mail question was particularly interesting to me, so I thought I would answer it with its own post…
Good Morning Gang,
Just thought I would drop a line and see if you can answer a question for me. So why does Ritchey not make its “Best Tire of (All)Time” the Z Max and Z Max Evo (in 29″er size)? These tires on a 26″ are just the xxxx. It would seem very easy to just add a couple of inches to an existing tire and make a larger version,right?
Thanks for you(r) time
Bend Oregon Single Speeders
This is of interest from a historical perspective concerning 29″ers. Early in October 2004, a thread was introduced on mtbr.com that stated there was interest on Ritchey’s part in doing a 29″er tire. Keep in mind that 2.1″ tires were all that was available at the time. The consensus was that a 2.4″ Z-Max tread should be the candidate for a 29″er Ritchey tire.
By December of that year another thread started by a Ritchey employee stated that the project looked to be going forward. With euphoric expectations, the 29″er freaks waited throughout the winter for any news of the new Ritchey 29″er tire, which would have been the biggest tire by far yet introduced for 29″ers.
However; by April 2005, another thread was posted stating that since Ritchey was going to be incapable of doing anything larger than a 2.1, it was abandoning the project. Ritchey was never mentioned again in any rumors or news concerning 29″er tires after this point.
Why didn’t it ever happen? Well, chances are that the reason given is actually the only good one. 2.1″ers were the only tires available then because of the tire mold limitations of the day. The 29″er marketplace had yet to be considered anything but a niche market at that time, as well. Certainly four years down the road, things are far different, but no one could have reckoned with clarity that 29″ers would have rocketed to the place they are at currently in 2004.
That things are far different now is also a good reason that you may never see those classic treads from 26″ers introduced as 29″er tires. Research has shown that a 700c mountain bike tire has a different set of performance parameters than a 26″er tire, it requires diffrent construction techniques, and the design needs to be unique to the 700c sizing. This extends to tread design as well. Since these things have been discovered, many tire designers are consciously adapting 26″er tread designs to 700c size in a unique and different way, which renders the end result as something very different from it’s original 26 inch design.
In conclusion, I would expect any future 29″er tire releases to become more and more estranged from what we see in the 26″er world, and not simply just “bigger versions” of 26 inch tread designs.
All I can say Is WOW! Thanks for such a quick response and the correction on my terrible grammar,must have skipped a few words and letters. That being said isn’t WTB going to make the Weirwolf in a 29′er and Not the LT? I certainly do not want a pissing match, just asking that’s all…Nevegal ,Small Block8 and so on. By the way, you guys ROCK!
Thanks for the backstory. I’d love a more in-depth article about 26 vs. 29 construction methods and tread design.
I have a set of old, folding skinwall Ritchey K Megabite 700x38c cyclocross tires mounted on my CX bike -and they are a ton of fun, makes me curious what a 29×2.2 would feel like. FWIW they seem to grip more readily than my Bontrager dryX 29×1.75s, this on the same bike on the same trails. Could just be the size, but again, I’d love to see the details of tread/size/casing explained a bit more to me.
PS my 29×2.1 Panaracer fire XCs seem very similar to the 26×2.1 version, and directly relatable to the 26×2.4 FireFR.
I speak from personally knowing the Ritchey employee that posted the threads that you are talking about. I’ve personally begged for 29′er tires from Ritchey and was specifically told that it will not happen period, as recent as Interbike 2007. 2008 I didn’t even bother to ask.
I believe the reasons are multiple. First off Ritchey at one point had made a frame that was called the Mount Cross. It was a 700c wheeled version of a 26″ mountain bike. I don’t believe it sold that well. So the thought of what it would cost to produce a mold set for a 29″er tire and the QTY that they believed they would sell didn’t make sense to go into production.
With all that said… Well there are some 29′er parts that Ritchey is looking to produce in the very new future under both the Ritchey lable and the Syncros labels. But I haven’t heard anything about tires.
GT,
this is interesting stuff.
it is often difficult to dig up research the manufacturers are doing and one usually ends up with marketing bumpf
any info on carcass design, bag size and tread design specific to the larger diameter and how it affects grip and rolling resistance would be delightfully gobbled up by this 29er nerd.
cheers !
I was one of the 29″ freaks at mtbr who was first ecstatic and later dejected at the progress of the Ritchey discussion in 2004. It was really disappointing that they decided to stay on the sidelines completely rather than build the 2.1 Z-Max that they still could have made.
But even after that disappointment, I could not have possibly imagined that big wheels would have exploded so much in popularity more than four years later AND that Ritchey stlll wouldn’t have anything. Since then their 700×42 ZED has been marketed on and off as a 29″ tire, but no one in their right mind would put a 1.65 in the same league with real MTB tires.
I don’t understand what has happened at Ritchey, but I can only guess that someone there with decision making power is either too stubborn to join the 29″ party, or too bitter after the 1990s Mount Cross failure. If that’s the case, it’s ancient history and time to get over it. Bianchi and Diamondback were in the same boat and resisted 29″ for a long time, but even they have come around.
Of course the irony is those initial 1990s attempts at bigwheel bikes failed precisely because no one made fat tires for them. And Ritchey still refuses to.
Glowboy, you are right on many of your observations. But one thing that I think you are overlooking is that Ritchey made their Mt.Cross before the trend picked up and the bikes became more tuned you might say for the wheel size. Therefore I believe it was thought of as a road they had traveled and they didn’t want to try it again. The funny thing is I know some people that race on those 42 zeds. Crazy. But the good thing is that they are starting to recognize it, just maybe not in tires yet. I too would love to see a Z-Max tire for the 29′er market. Maybe once Giant starts making 29;er bikes.”:-)
Aren’t Ritchey tires made by IRC (their factory)?
I asked Tom about a Ritchey 29er tire in the fall, because I thought that his quick roundish tire design would be ideal for a 29er tire. He said that they had no plans to make a 29er tire, but that they were looking at making a 650b.
@Chuff you see 584mm/27,5″/650B will canibalize 29er tyres.
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to money. Keep in mind that Ritchey outsources their component line (as many manufacturers do) It would cost them quite a bit to retool and redo tire molds to get the Z-Max produced. I too loved the ZMax and would love to ride a 29er version and would love to see it produced but I understand that it probably won’t happen.
Oderus, what you said about having to pay for new molds and tooling to do a 29″ tire is true, but it is true of any tire company and nearly all of the major ones have now gotten on board. Ritchey doesn’t have any special barrier to entry into the 29″ market that the other tire companies don’t have to deal with.
650B but no 29? WTF? Are they thinking that since there’s hardly anything available in 650B, they’ll be able to make more money there than the now-crowded 29″ market? Basically taking advantage of the opportunity that they blew (in the 29″ market) 4 years ago?
I would be extremely surprised if Ritchey ventured at all into the 650b market after so many have asked for a 29′er. If they do it would be a big surprise and even more silly that they never came up with a 29′er version.
Interesting comment by “chuff” there. It would make sense from a historical standpoint only- the 650B thing that is. Ritchey made several 650B mtb’s early on until the tire supply dried up and effectively killed the idea before it could take root. So, from that standpoint there is a precedence.
I do not think it would be a wise marketing move, and I do feel that several manufacturers are going to hold back, because there are no fork manufacturers besides White Brothers behind the idea.
If Rock Shox, Manitou, Fox, or Marzocchi would pony up for a “real” 650B fork, the dam might break open a bit wider for this format. Maybe…….But then again, I just do not see the sort of grassroots, populist undercurrent for 650B like I did for29″ers this far into the game.
It’s funny, because much of the 650B postings are from guys using the wheels for urban/touring purposes. Totally unlike the 29″er movement. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to see Ritchey make an urban/commuter 650B tire and a bike to go with it.
Now “that” would make a ton of sense.
It’s a TR vs. GF thing.
I lost count, but are now at what, 50 or 60 distinct WIDE 29″ tire molds, the way they didn’t exist pre-’99.
Ritchey has a true passion for development, and better ways to do things. Just, they don’t really “bite”, and keep sticking carbon on perfectly fine alu parts.
Seems Ritchey is far away from the 29er movement. Their new wonderful and superlight carbon-fork will only be available in 26″, no plans to do it in 29″. That fork would be an improvement, not some worse tires.
It’s the typical thing you see with bike (part) manufacturers. Too busy trying to not waste money on projects that will net them less than their budgeted marginal income, that they forget to not be left behind while the competition is being early adopters and building up almost monopolies.
$5000 or so for a tire mold made the first 29″ tire happen. A multi-million dollar market has emerged, and 60 next times it has been repeated.
So Ritchey is either too early to make money, or too late to not be the very last to enter the feeding frensy.