Darryn

I want to put some hookworms on my 2005 raleigh m80, but I don't know if they will fit on my current rims, how can I tell? Also, I am going to be using this bike mostly for commuting since I broke my trek elance, but I would like to try some "urban assault" as well, hence the hookworms. The stock manitou six fork does not seem good for either as it does not have much travel and no lockout. What would be a good fork for this? I have little money and am willing to purchase used.

commo_soulja

Yes, they'll fit the rim. You just won't get the full width of the tire on the narrow rim.

cyclops

Marzocchi DJ 1, 2, or 3 in order of preference.

3speed

^ Which happens to be on clearance right now for $150 ($300 MSRP) at blueskycycling.com. Just picked one up myself and it seems like a nice fork for it's intended use, or just a budget trail fork if you need something that can actually take some little drops, etc, and don't have $500+ to spend.

https://www.blueskycycling.com/produc...per_2_Fork.htm

Zephyr11

Oh geez dude, 2.5" Hookworms are going to be beastly for commuting. Those things are so heavy. They'll work fine for urban, but depending on how long your commute is, you might want something a little less boat anchor-ish.

Darryn

What are the differences between the dirt jump forks? The Raleigh m80 weighs 32 pounds already, how much of a difference do heavy tires make? And I saw a 2009 tora 302 on eBay for 120, would that be a good option for jumps?

Darryn

Also, how detrimental is having a small effective tire width? Will it affect my ride much?

cyclops

MDJ 1 on sale at Jensons, https://www.jensonusa.com/store/produ...1+Fork+11.aspx

The DJ 1 is all alloy, 2&3 have steel staunchions and steerers. Personally I would have thought the rolling resistance of the 2.5s would be horrible, look at a narrower fit if possible.

Zephyr11

Keep in mind you'll probably need a new front wheel (or at the very least, a new front hub). Most DJ forks will be 20mm TA. DJ3 might still be 9QR.

I'd take an Argyle over a DJ.

3speed

Not that I'm an expert by any means, but just a couple of quick things. The width of a tire doesn't really give it a lot of rolling resistance. My fat tire cruiser with 2.5"s is great and cruises 100 times better than my MTB even with narrower tires. It's all about tread and somewhat materials. Also, the Marzocchi DJ 2 or 3 still have a 9QR, as do some other options of DJ forks, so that wouldn't be a problem if OP decided to get one.

To OP, as for the differences between the DJ forks, it depends on which fork you're talking about. Give it a quick search and read about them. I'm pretty sure the Tora 302 isn't suitable for jumping, though. If you don't want to have to buy a new front wheel, I would recommend the Marzocchi DJ2 I linked. That fork has a valve in it that fits a standard bike pump that would allow you to keep the pressure up higher for commuting, which is what you'd want so that the fork isn't bobbing sucking up your effort while you pedal. Then you could just let out a little air pressure to soften it up when you want to do a little urban riding. You're not really gonna find anything(as far as I know) capable of much abuse for close to the $150 that the DJ2 is on clearance for. I think the hookworm would be a reasonable tire for a compromise between commuting and urban, but if you plan to do a lot of commuting and just a little urban, you might want to look into something directed a little more toward commuting. Don't worry too much about the traction issue. Traction isn't much of an issue on pavement, and I'm guessing since you're just starting out that you're not gonna be getting too crazy with it yet anyway.

cyclops

Got to disagree with that, several bikes with different combinations of fat/thin slicks over many years suggest otherwise.

In a heartbeat, there's an Argyle RCT 140mm with my name on it somewhere. Its just the spondoolies stopping it from being here.

OP, I'd still be looking at the Marzzzochi DJ 1 or 2 as the best cheap option IMHO

Zephyr11

It's more the weight that I'm talking about, and it's rotating weight too. The Hookworm is a wire bead that weighs just as much as a downhill tire. If the bike is for 90% urban and 10% commuting a mile to the store or riding around a college campus, then the Hookworm is fine. If it's a 50/50 split and you're going to be putting some serious commuting mileage on there, I'd go with something a little lighter. You're putting a heavy DJ fork on there, and then you're going to give it boat anchor tires. I mean as long as you're not expecting it to be a good commuter and are planning on making an urban assault bike that can be used as a commuter in a pinch, you're good to go.

The Tora won't be ideal for urban. It's not meant to take as much punishment, and it's not as firm. But then again, this isn't even going on a dirt jump frame. If you beat it to hell, I feel like you'd kill the frame before you killed the fork...and both of them would probably outlast the other not burly components on there. I would bet your wheels would be the first to go.

Depending on how smooth you are, you might want to at least consider full rigid too. That would save you money, give you a super responsive urban assault bike, lighten up the bike, and would probably make it a more efficient commuter. But you have to be super smooth. Don't get me wrong, I would put a suspension fork on my DJ if I had the money, but that's because I'm not smooth at all.

Zephyr11

Also: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EHXKS4/...iamonbicycl-20
Full chromoly frame with geometry suited to throwing around, no RD to destroy, looks like BMX-style chromoly 3-piece cranks, and BMX-bred wheels that can no doubt handle more abuse than whatever's on your bike now. And it's super cheap! There's way nicer DJs if you don't mind ponying up the cash, but for the money, it looks like it would be super fun for urban.

Dannihilator

I'd even put the marzocchi 4x RC3 over the DJ line, but DJ line is hard to beat for the $$$, though rigid would give it a really good run for it's money.

Tire wise, hookworms are a beast.

dsprehe89

Honestly cyclops, 3speed is right. the width of the tire has absolutely nothing to do with the rolling resistance or the contact patch. However, the pressure does. The only thing that really affects the contact patch is tread pattern, pressure, and tire compound. However, the main reason to get a wider tire is usually for a more aggressive tread pattern and to be able to run lower pressure.

This image might explain it a bit better too. If you have 2 tires that are literally the exact same except width, and are running the same pressure in both of them, the wider tire will have a wider, but shorter contact patch and the thinner tire will have a narrower but taller contact patch.


Edit: OP, sorry for derailing the post.

As for the tires themselves, I've never used them, but they look like they would be just fine as long as you don't run really low pressure in them. However, 1kg is one extremely HEAVY tire and might not be that great for commuting.

Dannihilator

I should expand on my post in regards to the hookworms. I meant beast in a negative way, not a positive way. Having had a set of them before holy rollers became available in 2004/2005. The weight being the least of the issues, though you could feel the rolling resistance of the tires when conditions were dry, that was the least of the issues. Absolute miserable tire when the surface was wet. Way too heavy for a tire, not to mention that the 2.5 measures up to be more of a wider 2.2 than a 2.5.

If you are deadset on that type of tire, splurge a little and get Kenda K-rads over the hookworms.

https://www.jensonusa.com/store/produ...-Rad+Tire.aspx

Personally, right now I'm rocking a set of 26x2.1 Kenda Small Block Eights on the DMR.

Zephyr11

The 2.5s are only actually 2.2?? They looked so wide on my bike for some reason.

cyclops

More thread derailment...........:

Dude, why do roadies run super skinnies then? Why do drag racers run fats? Personally I always run my street tyres at max pressure, and science aside I disagree based on my experience. My seat of the pants tells me my commuter offers less rolling resistance with 1.15 slicks than it does with 1.95 slicks both those tyes ran at 80PSI.

I think your model is wrong.

dsprehe89

Drag racers run fats to run lower pressures, I go to drag races close to 8-10 times a year (by best friends dad races) and most drag racers run around 10psi. I've seen cars running 10" wide tires hook up just as good as cars running 15" wide tires. As for roadies, most road tires are made to be ran 100+ psi thus giving them less resistance. As for your experience, there are many other factors that could cause it, such as more weight, a larger tire will generally weigh more thus forth causing greater inertia, also, different tires often use different compounds, and a different compounds completely changes the friction coefficient and can cause the tire to flex more or less giving you a larger area contact patch. All I was getting at is that assuming everything else remains constant (which I know in the real world never happens) a wider tire isn't going to affect your rolling friction. However, their are many other factors that do change besides just the size of the tire when you put a larger tire on your bike.

As for how the whole contact patch size works, the force being put on the road from the tire is directly related to the pressure of tire and the weight of the sum of the rider and his/her bike. The force is what determines how large the area of the contact patch is, if those forces remain the same, then the area must remain the same. So the only natural thing is if you widen the tire, the other length in contact must shrink to keep the area the same. I just learned about this this past spring when arguing with a person I worked with over it. He races autocross and was looking into new tires and trying to figure out what all factors into better traction. So I understand how this is confusing. I think it is such a hard idea to grasp because we are raised under the impression where wider = more traction, when in reality there are many other factors that go into the equation and the width is just a result that is required to get all the other factors that are required such as a softer compound and lower pressure.

cyclops

"The force is what determines how large the area of the contact patch is, if those forces remain the same, then the area must remain the same."

Right there is where I think your model is flawed. "The area must remain the same", In theory you are correct but I think you will find that the theoretical model and the reality do not match. Different casing width, different construction (similar but different), different internal frictions, different total area. Anyway the roadie thing just doesnt hold up, a lot of road tyres run 100psi+ but riders still tend to use the skinniest. Why? because my butt sez so.

dsprehe89

As I said, that is assuming the compound is the exact same. I understand that the reality never fully matches theory, and that is because you can never make 2 tires that are the exact same. Even two tires of the same brand that are the same size even made in the same factory on the same line by the same workers can be different, but for the most part you can assume them to be close enough to where the difference should be unnoticeable. As I was saying, there are hundreds of things that affect the rolling resistance, but directly, the tire pressure and friction coefficient are the only things that directly affect the rolling friction. All other aspects of tires (such as width, compound used, wall thickness, tire height, even the steel and nylon belts that are put into car and some bike tires and the way they are oriented) are put there by the engineers just to get the tire to be able to handle particular pressure range with a certain coefficient of friction.

Either way, what ever works for you works for you. This sport, just like all others is more mental than anything. If you think it makes you faster, and you are actually riding faster (whether it be because of the tires or just because you are pushing yourself slightly harder and just thinking it is the tires (referring to the placebo effect) ) it doesn't really matter as long as you are enjoying it.

3speed

^The last paragraph that he said. That's your answer. If it works for you, keep rockin' it. It's all about being on a bike, right?

I'm sorry and I don't know what to tell ya, but if this is what you find to be the best case based on seat of your pants, your pants need to be re-calibrated () or it's a mental thing getting you to ride harder. You can even call a company rep of a tire company and they'll tell you that you shouldn't just default to the highest tire pressure. There are other factors in what tire pressure you should run, and skinny hard tires are not always the best or least resistant. The 2.5" tires on my cruiser do just that. They just cruise. They're nice tires, though. I've ridden other 2.5"s that feel like riding in mud. And I've ridden 1.75"s that didn't cruise as well as my nicer 2.5"s. From riding them, it seems to me like it's got a lot to do with build materials. I'm sure tire construction affects it plenty too, but I don't know much about that.

cyclops

Dudes, I had an epiphany, we're are all wrong and at the same time we're all right too. Your right, your model probably isn't that far out that two tyres of identical construction, bar width, would behave very similarly to the way your model suggests. I'm right, the seat of my pants is very finely calibrated, a precision instrument , no less. Your wrong, just cause my butt sez so. I'm wrong, because my butt didn't take into account the other difference between my fat slicks and my skinny slicks.

The epiphany, my fat slicks (and all tyres) have an aspect ratio, the ratio between the width and the sidewall height. You know where I'm going, dont you? My skinny slicks have this too! Guess what! The skinny slicks have smaller sidewalls than the fat slicks! So.............. the rolling circumference of the skinny slicks is quite a bit less than the fat slicks. Result? faster acceleration, faster cadence, the illusion of a faster cruising speed for the same effort.

DUH!

dsprehe89

Really? Really? Let me rephrase what I got out of that let you think about it. "The skinnier tires are smaller in circumference thus forth they spin faster".

1) If you are literally referring to spin speed, then that is just gearing and a larger circumference tire is going to spin faster, but you can just go into a higher gear on a smaller tired bike and it spin just as fast. Now what you could be experiencing on your road bike is that non of your gear ratios give you that perfect cadence to get the most power out of your legs for your preferred riding speed and putting on the skinnies change the overall ratio between your crank and the wheels just enough to give you that perfect cadence to gain a little bit more power out of your own legs, but I'm no cadence expert or anything so take that with a grain of salt.

2) Still referring to my #1 statement about spin speed, think of one of the main arguments 29er people use arguing for 29ers. I've never ridden a 29er so I can't make any claim to how true this is, but they argue that they spin faster than 26" tires which is opposite to not only what you said, but also what I said in my #1 .

3) However, what I think you were trying to get at is the inertia of the wheel will be different with different sized tires (which is 100% true). A wider tire is going to have a larger circumference which means that some of the mass of the tire is going to be farther away from the rotation point meaning that it will have a higher moment of inertia (which is the wheels resistance to change in motion). This will make the tire able to spin up faster making accelerating and hills easier. However, the inertia does not affect cruising because if your wheel continues to spin at the same speed it has no angular acceleration and thus the inertia is not affecting it. The bad thing about having light tires is that once you do get up to speed, a tire with low inertia has lower momentum meaning that it will be affected by rolling resistance more and more likely to slow down quicker. This basically means, for quick accelerations and lots of speed changes, light tires == good, yet for things like DH and cruising where you are either going to be going a constant (slow) speed or going DH where you don't have to do a lot of work to get to speed, heavy tires != good, but also heavy tires != bad meaning that it doesn't really affect you.

3speed

One thing I just realized I should add in all fairness. Skinny tires do have a slight advantage in general when it all comes right down to it. That's why the guys in the TDF use them. I'd guess for them it has more to do with weight than anything else, though. It's the same with having a rear derailer that weighs 5 grams less. Sure, for them, riding 1000mi, with their power, going full out the whole way, with the race potentially being decided by a matter of seconds, 5 grams might somehow make a difference. But it's not gonna matter to the average chump just out having fun on their bike. ...Just don't try explaining that to the guys that get fully shaved and throw on the lycra and diapers to go for a weekend cruise on their $7,000 road bikes.