Mountain Biking - Why run 2.5 on front but 2.3 tyre on rear?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
Just found this comment made by MBUK magazine when reviewing a Conti Diesel tyre:
"If you like freeride and enduro style riding, the perfect tyre combo for this season has to be a Diesel up front with a narrower 2.3 in Continental Gravity tyre out back"
Why would you run a narrower tyre on the rear? Is it a case of the front of the bike absorbing more of the bump impact?
This would be good on my bike cos the chain is rubbing on the tyre when in the lowest gear! And the tyres sometime rub on the inside of the frame at the bike but I'm not bothered about that.
06-23-05, 04:11 AM
Tire width selection is a combination of personal preference as well as functionality.
The front tire typically benefits from a greater width as more surface area is in contact with the ground. This gives better grip during turns on loose ground. As well, a wider tire does absorb impact a bit more then a narrower one, as you mentioned.
The rear tire is not exposed to lateral forces as much as the front, so it doesn't benefit from a wider width as much (unless you climb a lot on loose terrain).
It's not an absolute science.
Oh, and your tires shouldn't be rubbing on anything - chain or frame.
Most people will run a thinner rear tyre than front. When turning most of the force to turn is put through the front wheel so it needs a bigger surface area, also having mire rubber on the front can reduce a little bit of shock on the arms. Smaller rear will make it easier to pedal, less surface touching ground where the power is transmitted. Also as less sideways forces are needed on rear why create more drag?
FWIW i run a 2.35" rear and 2.5 front for DH.
Hopper, I still owe you a photo of my wife's FS bike.
Back on topic, we've wanted to run some really fat tires on our tandem (we can probably fit a 3" up front) for a while. But since we have no way to transport it right now, we'd be riding across town, wasting energy and rubber. What's a good suggestion for in the 2.2-2.5 range for Australia's combination of loose dirt/gravel over hardpack?
06-23-05, 05:38 AM
2.5" must be ridiculously wide. A 'wide' tyre to me is 1.95" but I normally run 1.8". Would the same principal of better cornering still apply to a 1.95 front and 1.8 rear? If so I might be tempted to give that a go.
For Aus conditions, a good setup would be either 2.35 front and rear or 2.35 rearand 2.5 front. Prob the latter if you are going to be doing some loose. I prefer maxxis and would prob run a 2.5 ST Highroller on the front and a 2.35 ST Minnion DHR on the rear.
06-23-05, 10:15 AM
Back in the days of riding BMX, I would run 2.125 up front and a 1.75 (Tioga Comp III all the way). I kept that up on the MTN bikes. Currently running the same sizes just to see if there is any difference. Not much difference noticed during slow speed turns. 2.00 on bike1 and 2.20 on bike2. Going to get a 2.4 for the front the of bike2.
06-23-05, 11:06 AM
I just bought those exact tires, conti diesel and gravity last week and there fantastic. Farily light, roll well, cusion bumps more and grip best on loose damp foresty stuff.
2.5" must be ridiculously wide.
It's no 3" Gazzalodi
06-23-05, 06:53 PM
ARG WHY oh WHY did Zocchi make my 66rc 2.8 max... or my dirtbag 2.8 max NOOOOOOOOOO
06-23-05, 09:02 PM
2.8?! Thats huge! The biggest i will run is 2.1, MAYBE one step up in size for a muddy time.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.