Originally Posted by
base2
There is more to a bike than an arbitrary tire width.
Thank you for answering my post. But, I feel compelled to argue against this. I think I've posted about this earlier, if not, I'll say it now. I once swerved around a pot hole (which put me in danger of being in front of traffic) and ended up hitting another pot hole I didn't even see (with tires I measured at 31mm). I'd rather not damage rims if I can avoid it and also find it kind of jarring to ride in a situation like that.
Other comments I repeated from other people (whether in articles, messages or videos), the fact that some people reported setting new personal records by riding 27.5x2.8" versus 29x2.35". And others saying they have more traction and control with larger tires for example that "street" rider showing in a video actually sliding on the road with a thinner tire while having complete control with his Maxxis 2.5" tires. I read even braking is improved with larger tires.
So, no to me I can't see this as being arbitrary. It might be an awakening to a new style of bike which maybe should have existed for a long time, bikes with tires ranging from 2.4" to 2.6" (generally speaking because some of those who speak about 2.8" tires also speak about going down to 2.6").
The reasons why I wouldn't argue for 29x2.6" are partly due to the larger circumference which would require even smaller chainrings, potential toe-overlap and the consequences to frame geometry etc.