Ugly Parts

[montymitch]

I really really really hate the look of these new 2.4 or above tires. It just looks ridiculous. Why do you need bigger tires for softer landings when you know damn well that the majority of your spot is a foot tall ledge.

Yes. Even the mountainbike industry learned that anything bigger than 2,3" (maybe 2,5" for the worst downhill tracks) is quite useless. And while they now fancy tanwalls and fatbikes, BMX is now jumping on the 2,6" gazzaloddi train and makes it even worse with that fuckin colours.

Who is making 2.6 tires? I need to see pics of the monstrosities.

[slvtn]

Who is making 2.6 tires? I need to see pics of the monstrosities.

I guess there's no 2,6 yet, but it was mentioned several times that Subrosas Dirtdigger inflated to about 2,5. Even that 2,4 tires out there look huge.

[Bunky]

I saw a walmart mongoose that had 2.65 knobby tires.

I shit you not.

[G]

I really really really hate the look of these new 2.4 or above tires. It just looks ridiculous. Why do you need bigger tires for softer landings when you know damn well that the majority of your spot is a foot tall ledge.

Yes. Even the mountainbike industry learned that anything bigger than 2,3" (maybe 2,5" for the worst downhill tracks) is quite useless. And while they now fancy tanwalls and fatbikes, BMX is now jumping on the 2,6" gazzaloddi train and makes it even worse with that fuckin colours.

What the hell are you talking about? MTB tyres are still growing. Fat bikes? 27+, 29+, Boost standard? Any of these things mean anything to you?


G.

[DAKINS]

Some ugly parts look good on a bike.

Form following function ≠ ugly.  Both of those are beautiful, and make other stems and forks look heavy and dumb.

I'm biased though, I just put a brand new pair of directors and a brand new elementary V3 on my bike.