Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

I have been experimenting with cranks and the24" x 2.6 Gazz and the 3.0 Gazz this week.

I had been riding for several days on the 3.0 and it felt solid and tracked well. But then I changed to the 2.6 and when I got on it, the uni tilted to one side. I rode the same trail one day with the 3.0 and then next day, I rode it with the 2.6.

When I switched to the 2.6, I almost fell off. It was really wobbling from side to side a lot, even on a mild uphill. I switched back to the 3.0 again, and the uni didn’t tilt. I don’t think it was my technique, or lack of it.

I even swapped another frame into the experiment and I got the same result. Pressure was at 22 psi each time I changed the tire.

The tread patterns are different. That may be the culprit.
I didn’t ride on a cambered road. The cranks used for both tires were Monty 158mm. Both tires appear to have even wear patterns that run lengthways. I rotate my tires regularly.

Anyone else noticed this about the 2.6?

the 2.6 may seem squirly but its really a more responding tire,once your used to it,there is a more nimble feeling.wheather you like that nimbleness or not is your choice…

Only rode one once; still, I didn’t notice any issue in this regard. You might benifit by running it at different pressures, 'tell you find what’s best (I run my 3.0 between 9-15 lbs). That said, the 3.0 is just WAY stable, and on a wide rim doesn’t round out much; a few minutes after my first ride on one, I road backwards off a curb with ease- all because of the tyre, not my skill. What, besides a Fireball, could compare? I wonder what rim you’ve mounted it on?

-Christopher

Re: Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

“teachndad” <teachndad.grwza@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote in message
news:teachndad.grwza@timelimit.unicyclist.com
>
> I even swapped another frame into the experiment and I got the same
> result. Pressure was at 22 psi each time I changed the tire.
>

Caution…rough estimates follow…

If your body weight creates a tire contact patch with the ground that is a 3
inch circle with the 3 inch Gazz at 22 psi, a 2.6 inch diameter contact
patch with the 2.6 inch Gazz would require about 29 psi.

Contact patches aren’t necessarily true circles.
There are probably many more variables.

Doug

i have ridden quite a bit with both tires, and find neither of them wobbly. They are both excellent tires with advantages and disadvantages. If it feels wobbly, try increasing pressure and ride on it more. Also, the size of the rim affects this.

-Ryan

It’s on a Sun BFR rim from Uni.com.

Technically, i d’ont think your supposed to run a 3inch or a BFR, because of it’s lack of “wideness”, however, my friend ran his for quite a while and has no problems. with it on the BFR, it is more rounded, and maybe this could contirbute to your wobbly tire, but i’m sure that if your ride the uni with the 2.6 more, this feeling will go away. D’ont you find it difficult to change your tire back and forth so often? each time i take my Gazz off, it’s quite a struggle!

-Ryan

Re: Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:31:06 GMT, “Doug Massey” <dvm@mmcable.com>
wrote:

>Caution…rough estimates follow…
>
>If your body weight creates a tire contact patch with the ground that is a 3
>inch circle with the 3 inch Gazz at 22 psi, a 2.6 inch diameter contact
>patch with the 2.6 inch Gazz would require about 29 psi.
>
>Contact patches aren’t necessarily true circles.

I would think that the forward/backward dimension of a contact patch
would depend on tyre diameter not width.
Conversely, side-to-side dimension would depend on tyre width not
diameter.
If both statements are true, the required pressure in the 2.6" Gazz
would be approx. 25 psi.

Klaas Bil

The pupil of an octopus’s or goat’s eye is rectangular.

Re: Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

“Klaas Bil” <klaasbil_remove_the_spamkiller_@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3e18d2d0.7307033@newszilla.xs4all.nl…
>> I would think that the forward/backward dimension of a contact patch
> would depend on tyre diameter not width.
> Conversely, side-to-side dimension would depend on tyre width not
> diameter.
>

I think I had a typo in there somewhere about diameter. Oh, well.

The other day I rode over a sheet of 1" thick Styrofoam in the street near
where they are building a house along my typical route. I rode straight
across it. I looked at it after making the 2 mile loop back and someone had
exchanged it with one that has a Coker track across it in a slight ‘S’
wobble. Some people!!

Any way, the Styrofoam retained a very good impression of what was going on
and in great detail. Maybe doing a static mount on top of a thin piece of
Styrofoam would show the contact patch shape for a given pressure / tire
setup?

50 Harper Points to the first person to uni to the nearest drive-in, gets a
root-beer to go, and tests their contact patch on a piece of the Styrofoam
cup. My guess is that it will always be oval as you have said above.

Doug

Re: Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

Based on your previous posts, you seem to be very sensitive to side-to-side pull or motions on your unicycle. This can make you a very good tester, but can also translate into lots of annoying rides for you.

I think it’s more a tire pressure issue than anything. 22 sounds plenty low, though I remember both I and John Hooten initially had too much air in our 2.6" Gazz tires, when we switched from more conventional width tires. Letting some air out made them ride much better, especially on pavement.

Then again it may indeed be technique on your part. All other things being equal, the 3" tire is going to have more contact patch and be more resistant to side-to-side wobble than something narrower. I rode the 26" x 2.6 Gazz for the vast majority of all my trail riding for two years, and it worked great for me. Kris Holm used it as well, when he was on the DM ATU.

Re: Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 04:20:55 GMT, “Doug Massey” <dvm@mmcable.com>
wrote:

>I think I had a typo in there somewhere about diameter. Oh, well.
My point was that required pressure goes up inversely proportional to
tyre width as opposed to to tyre width squared. I don’t think you had
a typo.

>50 Harper Points to the first person to uni to the nearest drive-in, gets a
>root-beer to go, and tests their contact patch on a piece of the Styrofoam
>cup. My guess is that it will always be oval as you have said above.
The idea is nice but who is to assign Harper Points?

Klaas Bil

Cows clean their noses with their tongues.

Re: Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:38:26 -0600, johnfoss
<johnfoss.guw5n@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote:

>I remember both I and John Hooten initially had too much air
>in our 2.6" Gazz tires, when we switched from more conventional width
>tires. Letting some air out made them ride much better, especially on
>pavement.

Really? My experience is different. I find that on pavement the Halo
24 x 3" rides better with higher pressure. It turns better, has less
rolling resistance and generally feels more solid.

Klaas Bil

A day on Earth is getting longer every day because the Earth’s rotation is slowing down.

Re: Re: Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

No, I definitely agree with you there. I may have missed a detail of the original post. But John Hooten and I went from riding 1.75" tires on dirt to 2.6. Naturally we pumped them way up, as you had to keep pretty high pressure in those skinny tires to avoid pinch flats. But the Gazz was more squirrelly on the dirt at the higher pressure. When I advised JH to lower his, he reported much-improved riding on the trail.

However on pavement, more air definitely makes for a better ride, and probably longer tire life as well. Ultimately, try not to use a Gazz on pavement too much, as it’s kind of a waste of the money you spent for a great dirt tire.

Re: Re: Re: Is the baby Gazz wobbly?

No it’s not, unless it’s just for getting around. It works very well as a trials tire, but I guess it cant compete with da fireball.