miked528

Took my new Jamis bike on another real tough trail, probably the toughest one yet and it'sobvious I need bigger more aggressive tires than my stock 2.0 Hutchinson that my bike came with. I'm going at least 2.1 in the rear and a 2.3 up front. I'm actually more concerned with my rear because I'm really sliding there. I've had to lock up my rear wheel several times on some intense downhill and there is no bite whatsoever. I need something that is going to grab. Plus, going up hill, I'm spinning out. My wheels now aren't up to the task. I know most people go thinner in the back but I 'm more concerned with traction. So far I looked at the WTB tires and I really like their aggressive tread, so I'm really leaning towards them. What do you guys think?

mikeE46

is that tubeless? then we can switch the tire. I have almost new( ride once) Python 2.3

ed 

If you want serious traction, go with the Kenda Nevegal Stick-E 2.35" on front AND rear. I have those on my Jamis and I can climb things that my XC Hardtail cannot due to traction issues. They're not super heavy at around 740g each. I've had two sets of Hutchison tires (1.85's and 2.2's) and I was not impressed with either. The Stick-E rubber of the Kenda will wear a bit faster, but it grips like glue. You could also go with the DTC formula if you want them to last a bit longer.

As far as braking on a descent...a wider, tackier tire will help a small bit but you need to learn to take advantage of your front brake a little more. On a descent, if you only use your rear brake, you will skid all over the trail and tear it up. If you use both front and rear brakes, you will notice that you have all kinds of stopping power with the front compared to the rear. (80% more) As you apply your brakes, your body weight shifts forward causing the rear tire to unweight and lose traction. The harder you brake with the front, the softer you must be with the rear.

I'm sure you probably already know this, but it sounded like you needed to hear it again to keep from skidding your back tire on the descent.

Anyway...I'd go with the 2.35's front and rear if they will fit in your frame. You can run a little less pressure with the higher volume which will give you much more traction and absorb small bumps better.

rockrates

if you really want some fat, mean tires, and aren't that worried about rolling resistance, you could run what i have: continental diesel 2.5 in the front, wtb motoraptor 2.4 in the rear. both are nasty tires.

miked528

Can I fit the 2.35?? It seems like in the rear it may be tight. As far as using my front brake on descends, I just feather it on descends. The terrain is just to rough with no room for error on both sides of the trail, with drops that could really kill somebody if they went over sides, and using the front brake on such a descend, will flip me and my bike. I'll check out those Kenda tires at my LBS.
Thanks

rockrates

you shouldn't have problems fitting a 2.3, but i'd be sure to ask an lbs employee about their return policy, should the tires not fit.

Chone

Yeah the Nevegals are outstanding, on climbs where the Specialized Adrenalines would usually spin out my Nevegal just keeps on going... on some rooty or rocky climbs, the Nevegals hold very well and I think 2.35 folding bead is just what you need, downhill they are as responsive and track as well as you'd want them to be (that is if you have decent brakes), on loose/muddy/rock-root filled climbs they are outstanding, they have about the same rolling resistance as my old Adrenalines and the extra weight (if there is even any) is not noticeable, in fact, thanks to the greater hook up, these tires are pretty fast and they hold up extremely well, even at low pressures, I was riding about 20-25 psi and I was getting a super-plush ride and I did not get one flat.

See at first I thought I may have spent too much money (like 70$ with shipping and all) for a pair of tires but now I see they were worth it, I just hope they last, and I can truly recommend this to anyone who does the least bit of aggresive riding or rides on loose/muddy terrain, the very least thing I demand is for anyone to at least try it.

They are that good

iamthetas

Panaracer Cinder 2.25. they grip like mountain goats on climbs and corners, roll real fast, dependable braking, are durable as heck in rock gardens and such and will out last the stick-E compound by far.
they make up for a lot of improper techniques. Ive only had 1 pinch flat in all the thousands of miles Ive ridden them and that was because at my 200# I was running them at 18psi because I didnt feel like inflating that day and blew the rear tube on a landing that went awry

miked528

Thanks for all your input's!! I decided on the Kenda Kinetics stick E, size 2.35. They don't seem to be as wide as other brands 2.35's, but I'll be going to the trails this weekend and see how they perform. They seem like very sticky tires and have a very aggresive tread on them. They are folding tires with a Kevlar bead. What's everybody's experience with folding tires? Do they hold up? The only thing thus far that I don't like is that they have a minimun pressure of 40PSI. I like using, at most, 35 PSI for the front. You guys think I can still use 35 or should I stick with their minimum recommended pressure? I'll probably not risk a flat and use 40.