sgtrobo
I have a Salsa Cutthroat, and a set of 1.8" Renegades as well as a set of 2.3" Renegades. 
I have the 2.3" Renegades on a set of Roval Traverse 29ers (i30, ~1550g wheels) and the 1.8" on a set of Roval Control SL (i22, ~1370g wheels).  The 1.8" Renegades with the Control SLs end up about 1.5 lbs lighter than the 2.3" Renegades with the Traverse.

I love the tire on hardpack, basic dirt, and especially gravel.  However, I'm interested to know what folks like better.  Do you prefer the bigger tire, as it provides a bit more float, especially over the ruts and deeper gravel, or do you prefer the lighter weight and quickness of a smaller tire?  Especially interested in those with Kanza experience, as that is my 2019 target

Quote 0 0
ljsmith
Personally I would go with the 1.8s.  I don't even run 2.3s on my mountain bike (I run 2.25s) so I can't think of any reason to run them on a gravel bike.  There gets to a point on gravel where a larger tire doesn't give much more benefit and it just slows you down over a long ride.  If I were to run larger tires, they would be 29 x 2.25 Thunderburts as they roll much, much faster than the Renegades, I have both so I know firsthand.  Another interesting gravel tire coming out in a larger size is the Schwalbe G-One Allround in 29x2.25, which should be very fast even in the larger size.  
Quote 1 0
stevef
Really depends on what sort of gravel is in your travel.  I would find 1.8's sufficient on most of the hard packed dirt roads and railtrails I typically enjoy.
Quote 0 0
sgtrobo
hmmm...probably should've mentioned that I'm a 250ish lb clyde with fake cervical vertebrae and a collection of shoulder reconstruction surgeries.  I tend to like overall bigger tires.

I'm definitely going to test this fairly soon to see how I feel with the 1.8s, I just wonder how much of a speed difference there will be, and if the improved speed over the long haul will make enough of a difference to compensate for the decrease in 'squish' from the larger volume/lower tire pressure

I could see a quick 50-miler definitely favoring the 1.8s, but there might be a benefit to the added comfort from the 2.3's over a 100 or 200-miler 
Quote 0 0
stevef
Heh, I should mention that I'm around 160 pounds and though I would find 1.8" tires adequate I wouldn't mind something bigger.  I probably wouldn't go as big as a 2.3" but I could see a 2.0 or so.  It sounds as though you would be well served by a 2.3"...
Quote 0 0
Volsung
It's not the size of the boat it's the motion of the ocean. Not all fat tires are more compliant.

1.8 is roughly the size of the 50c Soma Cazadero which has a supple tubular casing. I'd suggest those next time you're in the market for new tires.
Quote 0 0
sgtrobo
Volsung wrote:
It's not the size of the boat it's the motion of the ocean. Not all fat tires are more compliant. 1.8 is roughly the size of the 50c Soma Cazadero which has a supple tubular casing. I'd suggest those next time you're in the market for new tires.


the 1.8 Renegades ended up measuring out at 44.76mm on the i22 Control SL wheels.  

I've been pretty happy with how the Renegades rolled in conjunction with how they handled, and their durability. The 50c Cazaderos do look very interesting
Quote 0 0
chas

I have 40mm (700c)  and 60mm (650b) Schwalbe G-one tires

My favorite is 40mm.  Light, agile, and fast. 

But if you aren’t interested in speed/weight/hill climbing, 60mm is so super cush.  You might like it better.  My speed dropped from 15mph to 12mph average, but that was probably because the fat tires are on a slower bike.  For my specific tires, the 38mm are not going to roll any faster, but are a bit lighter

(I think on the same bike there would be less of a time/speed difference, besides the 60mm tires seem to be a little faster on a flat rail-trail type course where bike/weight makes little difference).

Certainly the 60mm is nowhere near as agile, but that is an advantage for some people/routes

Quote 0 0