In the ten years since the appearance of “The Tire”, (WTB’s Nanoraptor), 29 inch wheeled bikes can be shod with a wide array of rubber. From “barely there” race tires to “monster truck” moto-shredder tires, 29″er freaks have never had it so good. So, why is it that everywhere you look, there is a lot of grousing about tire choices for wagon wheelers?

Big, meaty rubber and high tech casing designs are finally making an appearance in 29 inch sizes.
It seems as if lots of riders are looking for something that isn’t available. A “mythical tire” that doesn’t exist, or something that is similar to what we have but is lacking in some critical area. While there are well over two dozen different tires that a big wheeler can choose from, what combination of traits is missing? What features are lacking? What is it that big wheel riders are looking for? Finally, do we really need it?
Here are some areas that I have seen talked about along with some of my observations……..

What the tires says on the sidewall is a big thorn in a lot of riders sides.
Truth In Sizing: This is probably the biggest burr under a lot of folks saddles. The inconsistencies in sizing have befuddled many a rider. Tires that are “measuring up” to what they claim are few and far between. Or- you have to wait until they are done stretching to get a width that matches the hot patch. Why can’t we get tires that measure what manufacturers say they should? Well, there are many reasons. One thing is for certain, it isn’t going to change much in the near term. 29 inch mountain bike tires are still a pretty new territory for many manufacturers. Getting zeroed in on size targets will most likely be better in the future. Still, the idea that all 29″er tires will someday measure what manufacturers claim to within a close enough tolerance to satisfy a majority of riders might be a bar that is set too high.
Tubeless/UST Tires: The other thing I see complained about a lot is why aren’t there more 29 inch tubeless and UST standard tires? Why are there different systems? Why can’t it be like 26 inch choices? Well, there are several reasons for this. First of all, even amongst manufacturers that offer 26 inch tubeless products, there isn’t a consensus in how tubelessness is achieved, and some manufacturers don’t believe it is the best for bicycles, (Although they may not admit this publicly). Add to this that making a 29 inch tire bead that will sustain the forces exerted on it by using it tubeless are very different than they are for 26 inch tires and you might see that a whole new set of design parameters must be employed here. That costs money, and the market for 29 inch tires isn’t anywhere in the same zip code as it is for 26 inch product.

Bontrager’s Tubeless Ready System tires and rims are one of the few tried and true tubeless systems for 29″ers available.
That we have tires that work tubeless for 29″ers now is pretty amazing. The debate continues though as to how to achieve this. With users being able to match up tires to varying degrees of quality in 700c rims and think that they can all be converted to tubeless use safely and reliably puts a red flag up in a tire manufacturers head. So some have gone with the integrated system approach, (Bontrager, Hutchinson/Geax with UST rims) and some have gone with a “wink and nod” approach to tubeless usage. Not really being forthright about whether their tires should be used tubeless, and not really advocating a rim/tubeless system. Now on the rim side of things it appears as though several manufacturers are going with what I am referring to as the “Stan’s Default” tubeless system, marketing their 2010 rims as tubeless compatible for 29″ers with a Stan’s strip. That’s great, but conveniently, tires are left out of the discussion.
Yes there are some tubeless systems that include recommended rims and tires. As for the rest claiming tubelessness, until tire manufacturers and rim manufacturers have tested and recommended combinations to riders as being “safe and reliable” it will be a sort of “latex roulette” that riders will have to play out for themselves in terms of what will work tubeless for wagon wheelers.
Sidewall/Casing Technology: Until 2009, 29″er tires were pretty low tech affairs in comparison to the same models in 26 inch sizes. Again, owing to the minuscule size of the 29 inch market compared to 26 inch product, this wasn’t really all that surprising. Still, riders complained bitterly about ripping sidewalls open as if they were riding balloons in a land full of knives. Now we are starting to see some new designs and model upgrades to a few tires that offer some sidewall protection. Bontrager’s “AR” casing, Schwalbe’s “Snake Skin”, and WTB’s “Inner Peace”/”Super Duty” casing technologies are some examples here. This, of course, all comes at the expense of weight. However; this is an encouraging sign for choices in 29″er tires, and perhaps an indication that big wheels are gaining more ground in the marketplace compared to 26 inch wheels, at least in America.
Speaking Of Weight… This is an area where the desires of 29″er riders and the realities of physics seem to be leading divergent paths in many cases. On one hand, riders are asking for bigger, more voluminous casings with big knobs, they still want to be able to run them tubeless and have sidewalls that won’t wilt at the sight of a jagged rock. Yet when the tires that come out with any sort of casing technologies added and have a decent knob size, they are panned for being too heavy. The tires everyone seems to reference in these discussions of width and volume fail miserably on the tubeless reliability scale or the toughness scale. Sometimes both. And we haven’t even entered into tread pattern and knob size discussions. I’m sure tire manufacturers are left a bit confused by this, as the “magic elixir” that will allow them to make this mythical tire still eludes their grasp. If someone ever does solve that riddle, rest assured that they will own a big slice of the 29″er pie in tire sales. (I won’t be holding my breath for that one, however.)
Is It Really Necessary?: Then the question should be asked- do we really need a bigger, wider, lighter, tubeless tire? When you go back to the first true 29″er tire- the Nanoraptor- and consider how much can be done with that one tread pattern, with tubes inside, one has to wonder just what all the fuss is about. Now I am not saying we shouldn’t have the choices we have, but we have a lot of really good choices. Just about any sort of riding one can do on big wheels has an excellent choice in tires that will work for that riding style and terrain. Sure- we can dream up new desires and voice opinions on what would be nice to see. That said, I think a bit of reality would be well advised for those that are looking for something in a 29″er tire they don’t find in the ones they are using. There are limitations.
Now I invite you to comment on what you would like to see in tires for 29″ers in the future. Be realistic. Be nice! ( I will delete non-constructive comments at my discretion) Tire manufacturing/marketing guys are reading this, so let ‘em know what ya’all think out there!












My only wish is simple – Racing Ralph 2.4 with snakeskin. Otherwise, Racing Ralph fits my needs for high volume, good all around tread, fast rolling, light weight, and works tubeless on Bonty TLR rims great.
Actually I’m pretty happy with the choices we have now. I refused to “jump ship” in the first place until tire selection improved. A 2.4 RR with snakeskin would be awesome but that tire is pricey and I’ve found other tires I like at a lower price. I’m after anything that’s middle volume with non-whimpy sidewalls (ie standard Racing Ralph). From Nanos to the XDX to the Ardent to the Conti options, I feel like I’ve got plenty to chose from in the 550g to 850g range that’s suitable for tubeless conversion on Stans rims and durable enough for multi day races without acting like a boat anchor.
I used to swap WW tires around all the time cause they were light. Now I just run a good all around tire for most events and only swap for extremely special conditions. It’s fun to spend more time riding, less time swapping tires and next to zero time fixing flats with Stans. It may not work for everyone but I’m not going back to my old ways.
Good comments, Ted. It is not all about volume or weight that makes for a good tire. There are lots of choices out there but some riders still insist on having that mythical tire:
Huge volume, weighs nothing, no rolling resistance, infinite traction, indestructible, will not wear out, and costs nothing.
The same quibbles people have with the 29″ tires could be applied to the 26ers–including the claimed sizes. Just that there are many more 26″ DH tires that can take the abuse some expect a light casing/tread 29er to hold up to, even though the 26″ tire weighs more than the 29.
In general, I like the direction the 29er tire selection is going. It has most of the range that is available in 26″ models, just not the depth. Most of the companies doing the big tires are following the same design goals they use in their 26″ offerings. Mostly it is the consumer that needs to be realistic in their expectations. There is no free ride.
I love my LTs, but I’d still like to see a full tread WTB Weirwolf 2.1~2.3. Such an excellent tire in 26″ for any trail or condition.
My caveats teems around the tread. It tends to be the same except for few tyres like Bontrager and WTB Kodiak. On 29er we are biased to shift the weight of the rider rather than use handlebar whilst turning, we take deeper leanings in order to break the torque and change direction, which demand for bigger side knobs and milder centre tread, as we don’t need so big tread owing to longer contact patch.
All tyres ought to be designed around tubeless ready bead but not the casing.
Such tyre in 26er size might suck a bit
My 0.02$
Cheers
DC
With the Ardent 2.4 coming, I think we’re now covered just fine in the tire arena.
Or at least we would be, if the Stout were still around. That tire rocks, and is at my personal weight limit. I will miss it when my last two wear out, and IMO, neither the Kodiak or Dissent are true replacements.
Also, although I was nearly crucified over this opinion in mtbr yesterday, I really find the Fire XC Pro 2.1 to have good to excellent performance in a wide range of conditions. I’d love a 2.3 version to complement it.
Schwalbe? I love them, and race on a Racing Ralph in back, but the prices are out of hand. Still, I think they would find a good market for a 29er Nobby Nic to complement the Racing Ralph, which is a great racing tire, but a bit shy in the knob size department for all around use in my neck of the woods.
Great topic GT! I think Maxxis and WTB have this figured out. Kenda hasn’t done anything lately, Geax is limited (but does nice stuff), Schwalbe isn’t totally committed and Conti is limited as well. I, for one, am a big Maxxis fan of late – their offerings are true to size and are pretty relevant to the needs of the segment, and the 2.25 Ardent is perfect for my high-speed pursuits, the 2.4 Ardent perfect for my rigid SS. WTB’s recent line up refresh should be good too. You’re right – lots to choose from out there.
Kosmo – you’ll like that 2.4 Ardent.
Sidewalls and Tubeless ready at 2.1 and 575-600 grams. That is the big thing for me. I am now starting to feel like some companies are now using there best casing for there 29 offerings. Geax stuff is nice but heavy for the size, bombproof sidewalls. I would love for WTB to do the Nano with a Tubeless ready bead at 600-625 grams. Schwalbe’s are great treads as long as you never ride rocks or anything with sharp edges. The Conti’s are nice but over 700 grams for a RACE tread? The race king is huge volume but make a 2.0 offering as well.
I will be trying out the Bontrager 29-3 Team Issue next year. I can’t decide which combo to run yet though. (Still want a 29 TLR super revolt 2.0 though)
Overall though I agree that it feels like we have some good choice out there now and as the market increases so will the tire choice.
I too will miss my Stouts when they are worn out. For some conditions, they are the only one. Other than that, I think the rest of the market is covered pretty well. I think Maxxis and WTB are doing the best job of filling all the holes. And my Maxxis tires seem to weep very little sealant compaired to most of my WTB’s.
Here is my fantasy tire: Maxxis Ardent 2.4 w/ an option of Kenda DTC or full Sticky rubber and a Geax Saguaro casing material, with a Specialized or Bontrager tubeless bead. Low 700g would be good too but I know that is pushing it. High 700′s are totally livable and are clearly achievable without new technology.
I will live with the standard Ardent 2.4. I also dream of a 2.4 29er highroller but I know that I am the only guy on the planet that wants one and I am already resigned to it never happening. The Ardent is close enough I suppose and when riding less aggressively it works better while rolling faster.
Where I live, the Kenda DTC Nevegal in the front and a Bontrager 29-3 front in the rear work great together. It would be nice if the Nevegal had a more stout sidewall(I hear some people are tearing theirs), but mine have been holding up pretty well. I really like the Bontrager 29-3 casing, and hope that Bontrager continues to pursue even more varieties of tread patterns with this same type/quality of casing as the base for the tire. I’m telling ya’, the 29-3 works really well in the rear. I wasn’t sure it would work at first, but it really does. My 29-3s have mounted and aired up with a floor pump on both my Flows and Arches. They seem to mount with a bit more difficulty on the Arches, and by this I mean that it was harder to get that last bit of bead onto the rim. The task was much easier on the Flow.
Also, I’d love to try the Geax tires, but I haven’t tried them due to what I’ve read here. If they won’t mount to my Stans rims, then I can’t use ‘em. That should really be addressed.
I don’t know if a 2.4 is ness, but the highroller tread would be great
I would like to see Maxxis offer wider sizes of current offerings. I think the Ignitor in 2.4 would be a great tire. Same with the Crossmark. My bike is a rigid single speed, so now you know why I would like to see them offered in wider sizes. The Weirwolf 2.5 LT, is one of the best tires in my application. I saw the new Weirwolf tread pattern on the 26 2.3 model today, looks promising. I wonder if it will carry over to the 29? I hate to say it, but there are a lot of people complaining about traction in mud, wet roots, and rocks. Its not possible to maintain traction on those surfaces, relying only on tire tread. Rider input, has more impact on the outcome in those conditions. All in all, we have good choices in tires, in my opinion.
No problems mounting the Geax Seguro on my Flows. They have a pretty tough, yet supple casing, and low rolling resistance. Not the lightest tire for the size, but thats the tradeoff. So far, its been a good all mountain rear tire for me.
mud tread with low duro rubber instead of mud tread with long wearing rubber
Again, a great reflection on how 29ers are evolving, this time in the tire department. Tire choice and pressure has more influence on my riding experience than anything else, apart from suspension (yes/no – on/off).
My take is that tire choice is starting to look quite similar to 26″, with some progress left to be made in a few small area’s:
- Light, high volume racing treads for those with the riding skills and terrain to make them work. Schwalbe, Bontrager and Geax revert to making their ‘raciest of racing tires’ small to make them really light. Small + stupid light = snakebite or no comfort at all, because you have to run higher pressures. Big + stupid light = reasonable puncture protection and comfort (read: Low rolling resistance on rough ground).
I’m with Steve-O on this part: The Race King is too heavy for its intended use. It’s not like Conti does not have the capability to make a lighter version: They do so with their 26″ Race King with Supersonic casing. It is a pure marketing choice. Apparently they do not want to take the risk to invest in the number of casing variations in their 29er lineup they have in their small wheel lineup.
The Notubes Raven has the weight/width ratio I am looking for. Bigger than the ‘claimed 2.0, real 1.8′-crowd, but only slightly heavier. Maybe the new Maxxis Aspen comes close too, but I have not seen that one in real life yet.
- Dedicated mud tires, light please. There is no equivalent to the Maxxis Medusa in 29″. Sure, there is the Mud-X, but I said light, didn’t I? Mud adds enough weight allready.
- Full on DH tires, no matter what they weigh. The whole 29er DH experiment has just started.
Count me in for the bigger Crossmark. Great race tyre for most conditions.
Maybe Keith B.’s quote should be(for tires at least); wider, lighter, grippier and more puncture resistant.
Won’t sew-ups make this argument moot in about 7-10 years?
Nevada 29er
Are you running the TNT version of the Geax Saguaros? I’m pretty sure everyone on this site was saying that you can’t mount those on Flows. There were some pretty interesting tales of people trying to wrestle these onto their Flows.
First, here’s another vote for Stout. It is not light, but it is lighter than Kodiak/Descent, and rolls like mad. TLR Stout would be huge.
Tubeless is just clearly the way to go. Bonty TLR is a huge and friendly to the home bike shop, and I have never had a failure of any kind in installing and using the system. I would like an XR1-like tread pattern in TLR for use in commuting/gravel/path training rides.
The biggest complaint with Bonty wheels is the dumb-downed hubs on the ’09/’10 offerings.
After several pesky flats with tubes over the years, I have had had zip-zero-nada flatswith tubeless set-ups, Stans or TLR.
In the final analysis – I’m happy. Always would welcome more tread patterns – but the stuff in the past couple years has been light years better.
One final thing – you make a lot of excellent points here Ted, but none more important than the “wink and nod” some tire makers make toward tubeless use. Manufacturers need to make it much plainer that their tires are not good candidates for “conversion”, or better yet, do the work to make a good tubeless application. Of course, many conventional tires do fine mounted on the Stan’s system just as they are – just let us know how good, and what the risks are, if we use your tires tubeless. Up front, in plain English.
I am looking forward to trying the newest evolution of the Specialized Eskar with the taller side knobs. I think that might fit my hankering for a good sized 29er Highroller that is tubeless and has a durable (but not great) casing. Bontrager gets a lot of press on this site but Specialized has some good 29er tire offerings too that are worth considering. I think that they might even be the dark horse in this whole tire debate that could eventually wind up out front. For some reason Maxxis doesn’t want to make tubeless beads for their tires. This is just the opening that Specialized needs especially considering that their tire designer came straight from Maxxis.
JYB,
No, I’m running the non-TNT Saguaros, which are lighter, but have not had any issues with running them tubeless. They sealed up without a fuss, running standard homebrew sealant.
I want a 2.4 (compared to existing true to size 2.25) Bontrager XR front. Best casing and rubber they got.
Perhaps slightly shorter lugs, as the volume will add grip, less need for deep tread.
The XR is SO good on sandy soil, and crossing sand traps. Just, not super high-tech built, thus not really impressively rolling.
I would also accept a 29″ version of the Surly Larry.
We now have 29″ DH tires, and 330g race tires that actually work.
We have Surly 26×3.7″ snow/sand tires.
We have, a few, 36″ tires. That actually perform pretty well for what really are moped quality tires.
Now, it is time for a new category. The Oversize. The Overdrive. The Big+Tall.
I am repeating my years-long plead (they tend to come true, in about 5 years on average).
Give us:
29×3.0 tires. Relative weight would be a bit below that of the legendary Surly Endomorph 26×3.7″. It will have a greater diameter, by about 2 inches. If wil have a longer, yet narrower footprint. It will want to be ridden through sand and snow FAST, and do so BETTER than the aforementioned existing options. It will handle more naturally for general XC riding, yet offer significant cush and GRIP (when given proper tread and casing) over even the super duper excellent Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4″. Not that thread through please, it’s not that good in sand. It is for snow, I’ve been told.
3.0″ is wide, but not impossibly so. Bikes could be designed to fit them, with lesser modifications that from XC 26″ (or 29″) to 26×3.7″.
Imagine eventually having <1kg tires that are like the current Weirwolf LT 2.55 and Racing Ralph 2.4", but then WAY more volume! We already have the rims for this, the 35mm Velocity and 35mm Salsa. Or of course the 38mm and 47mm Kris Holms.
29" is not close to being cumbersomely large in diameter, while scoring mega points in speed, grip, comfort and control.
26×3.7" has proven to be very rideable, and bring bikes where before only hikers came.
Imagine, more diamter tha regular 29", from the added casing height.
Then, more cush and grip than your favorite big 29" tire. Similar to a 26×3.7".
But, more float at speed. More stable handling. More grip. More traction. Less weight, a bit. Less hassle. More FUN!
Imagine, how the "hip" riders will hate you this time around. They hated you for riding 29" (daring to differ). Now they ride then themselves, because the "hip" brands found out how to do the size properly (…). Oh, the looks of them showing up on a 3-incher, that they know will be waiting for them at the trailhead after the ride…
Truth in sizing would be a good place to start. How can we say that we need more 2.4″ tires if the current 2.4″ tires are really only 2.2″ wide??? Some mfg’s are really good with this, others have gotten better while the rest totally ignore (or so it seems) the actual tire size and stamp whatever size the marketing dept thinks consumers want on the side. A standard that has actual measurements (at a realistic psi on “normal” size rims) for tread and sidewall width would be great!
How about some new technology infusion! If you are going to charge me $50+ for a tire it better be more than 10 year old technology with a new tread pattern! Start experimenting Sidewall protection materials, rubber compounds, bead shapes, bead materials…etc Advances in this arena could significantly affect weight, durability and longevity.
Along those same technology lines, why not develop a better sealant for off-road use? The rim market is filling up with more tubeless-ready (converted tubeless using some sort of sealing strip) rims making the need for a better sealant more prevalent. Maybe one that doesn’t dry-up or damage the rubber???
Until this happens I’ll quietly ride my 2.4/2.25 Ardents.
We need a PANARACER SMOKE & DART 2.3 size……just like the tread patterns on the old ones! When it comes to tires these are the only ones you need, I’ve tried numerous WTB, Kenda, Maxxis, Continental, and various off the rim companies, and none of them ever came close to the legendary SMOKE & DART!
Peace to all MTBers!
I’ve worn out some WTB Exiwolves, Conti Mountain Kings 2.2 & 2.4, and some IRC Mythos II XCs and I really can’t complain about any of them, except for the Mountain Kings wearing out kind of fast.
I love the Geax tires, I run the TNT Saguaro on Bonty Rhythm Elites, and have mounted them on Stans rims as well, as a matter of a fact, they are my favorite tire to use, sell and mount. The Bonty XDX is a close second, but seemed to wear a little fast.
I would really like to see some thing like the Geax Mezcal, a tire with good biting side knobs and a smoother, semi-slick center line. I am a big fan of larger tires in the 2.3 to 2.4 range as long as they are actually that size.
People spend a lot of time thinking (read: obsessing) about tires, examine every minute detail of the available tire options; traction, weight, durability, tubeless compatibility, sidewall thickness, rolling resistance, ease of installation, etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah…
The fact of the matter is this, unless you’re a professional cyclist who makes his or her living riding bicycles; one who’s livelihood depends on placing well in races where the 0.002 second gain you get from matching the perfect tire to that day’s racing conditions really matters; the kind of tire you ride doesn’t really make that big of a difference. Outside of traction, your fitness and bike handling skills have more to do with “performance” than your tires. For 95% of the “hobbyist” 29er riders out there (serious amateur racers, and weekend warriors alike) a solid all around tire where traction outweighs everything else will do just fine in all but the most ridiculous hard-pack “dirt-sidewalk” conditions.
Choose a tire with good traction. It doesn’t matter how fast your tires roll, how light they are, or how well they mount tubeless if they don’t have good traction. If you can’t grip the trail, you’re not going anywhere. The more secure you feel to the trail the more confidently you’ll ride and the better rider you will be because of it.
The Panaracer Rampage is one of the most unsung hero 29er tires out there. Good volume at 2.35 inches, great side knobs, relatively good rolling middle knobs, sure they’re heavier, but who cares, its not like we’re competing for a world-cup title. Plus pushing heavier tires makes you faster if you do decide to switch them up. I’ve been riding and racing a set of Rampages on my bike for two years with tubes at 20 psi in the mid-atlantic region where rocks and thorns abound and have never flatted on the trail.
It seems to me that riders in general would benefit more by obsessing about tires less and riding more. Just saying…
P.S. WTB – love your stuff too, but two words side knobs…not everyone lives in the west where the trails are always dry. If the Weirwolf and the Exiwolf had any side knobbage to speak of, they would be awesome tires…awesome…
@SS “Truth in sizing would be a good place to start…”
Except nobody can agree what that means, Not the users, not the manufacturers. There is not widely used standard for knobbies tires. Even the Ardents you mention would be called “undersized” by some because the casings are narrower than the claimed width, even though the tread is. The WTB GMS is about the best method in use. The nominal width is required by the market but of little real use.
Maxxis does mark their tires with a version of the GMS and it is dead-on for the Ardents
@shopmechanic FYI the Bontrager tire designer came from Specialized.
I’m running a 2.2 Captain Control on the front and a 2.2 Captain Armadillo on the rear currently. In the summer I ran TNT Saguaros. Both sets are set up tubeless. I heard many comments about weight but then I weigh 230lbs. And knock on wood – no flats yet. I love lightness, but I am far more enamored with not repairing flats.
@ Shiggy
exactly! There needs to be a STANDARD across the industry and without it the consumers are the ones who lose-out when purchasing tires.
Maxxis was once one of the biggest offenders of labeling their tires as much larger than the actual “on rim” width. Their newer tires/sizes are much closer to the size marked on the sidewall, however, the older designs have not been revamped.
So, until there is a standard we’ll have to continue to check your site for real measurements. Keep up the good work!