Tjaardbreeuwer profile

I put the 2.25 Magic Mary Soft (slightly softer than Maxxis Maxterra, but much firmer than Maxxgrip) on my 10year old’s front wheel.

Her bike (an ‘10 Epic 29, that I ”Evo’ed” with long fork, 27.5 rear wheel and offset bushings), has a 21mm front rim.

I wanted a narrow tire so that it would still shape up square enough, and be supported well, on the narrower rim.

The Mary was one of the few that were still available.

Yep, I feel pretty similar,

Yes, I have.

I have not liked the big Ergon grips for MTB riding, due to the rigid wing creating a push the wrong way when descending, and a lack of ‘give’ over rough terrain. Your article  is a good reason to try them out again.

I have been happy with the Ergon and Specialized versions with the smaller, softer wing, like the GA3 you were searching for.  I do not think they do very much for the wrist, but they do help spread pressure over the hand.

Note that the generation Specialized grip that is linked, has a concave surface on the wing, designed to interface with the padded center of their Grail glove. Without this glove, it feels far less supportive and natural. Older version did not have this, they were lightly convex in both axes.

Actually, I was going to put in a plug for “bar-ins”: bar ends mounted inboard of your grips and controls.

Bar-ins on wide mtb bars:

Don’t catch on branches

Provide a position similar to a road bike position:

• Roughly shoulder width, to reduce strain on shoulder blades
• Slightly longer than your mtb position, for more comfort on long flats or climbs, especially useful if your saddle is fairly far forward
• A neutral wrist/elbow/shoulder position. Imagine a handshaking position for your arm.
• A completely different position. No matter how good the position, the human body does best when changing it up regularly.

I use a pair of old, stubby, carbon Specialized S-Works bar ends. SQ-Lab makes some dedicated ones, but I actually find them less than ideal, due to extensive shaping at the top creating ridges. If you do try them, try flipping them upside down. Your grip curves down, but the Inner bar-ends curve up in stock configuration.

So my suggestion is to go dig in your ‘old parts’ bin, or even go dumpster diving for some Huffy’s that had bar ends installed, and give it a shot.

https://www.leelikesbikes.com/bar-ins-the-new-bar-ends.html *

*Note that the mtb bar width = push up width mentioned on that page, is no longer supported by Lee or others, since you need pulling just as much as pushing on your mtb bar.

Agree. 

Fit and geometry don’t add weight. So really the choice is about grip/comfort/durability versus weight

I wonder what the difference in weight is between the suspension on the XC and TR Blur versions? Stepcast 34 is a lot heavier than a SID, but you loose the remotes. That might make it fairly close.

@Pete Roggeman said:

“When writing for our audience we like to use the lens of being in the shore but appeal to a wider geographic audience. It's a tough balance. But nsmb has always been more focused on trail riding and up.”

I am on a different Northshore (Lake Superior’s). I am totally happy with the way NSMB writes from a (Vancouver)Northshore based perspective. After all, it is in the name! I then just calibrate what you write, into the trails I will be riding.

Where I think there is a bit of a problem, is with the larger media outlets, that write for a global audience. First of all, I (the reader) often don’t know what type of trails they are riding on when they review bikes, and second, they often forget that there is such a diversity of trails and riding styles out there and making sweeping generalizations about a bike or component’s suitability.

I totally agree.

I think the biggest benefit of a lighter, faster rolling bike, is that it feels faster, and thus encourages you to go out more, and to keep accelerating, because you feel a result.

In contrast to my statement about tires above, one of the German bike magazine did a test a while back where they pimped a Rocky Mountain Instinct Carbon 70, and checked both segment and lap times and power.

Interestingly enough, the heavier, slower rolling stock tires (DHR I think), actually used less power on the climb than the lighter, faster rolling ones they put on.

They suspect this was due to the fact that this climb was very steep and loose, and thus they experienced less wheel slip and could pedal more easily on the grippier tires.

The downhill gave the same times on each set up, but they suspect that if it had been wet, the stock set up would have pulled ahead.

The time and power savings came in the nearly level gravel road section of the lap along the ridge top. A chunk of the savings there can be ascribed to the lower rolling resistance of the swapped tires.

Stock bike (13.37kg):

Uphill segment 5:24s/188W, flat segment 3:03s/210W.

With faster rolling, lighter tires (12.99kg):

Uphill 5:32s/207W, level 3:00s/182W

With those light, fast tires and large further weight savings (11.08kg)

Uphill 5:20s/200W, level 2:55s/173W

https://www.bike-magazin.de/service/kaufberatung/tuning-am-touren-fully

Oof,  that makes me love our  town, Duluth, MN (85,000 people), is building out to ~100 miles of mtb trail. All built and maintained by our local trail club, city staff and contractors paid by government funding and fundraising.

There is no fee to ride our trails, but the club definitely gets donations from me (labor, donations for auctions, and cash).

All of the trail networks around us like that.

Many years ago, a German magazine did a comparison test of plus tires vs ‘normal’ tires and normal tires with Procore inserts.

In many aspects, the Procore set up performed similar to the plus sized tire.

It sounds like @Cam is running plus-like pressures with these in skinny tires.

It would be great to see some comparative testing of 2.4, 2.6 and 2.8 inch tires with inserts (these or Cushcore) in the narrower widths.