pdxtex

does anybody do this? run a wider tire in back like a 25 and a more narrow one in front, like a 23c? i recall some conti tires sold as a set would do this. was that a fad or is there something to it?

NathanC

Shimagnolo

Makes sense, but eliminates the option of putting the new tire on the front, and the used front on the rear, (when the rear wears out).

tagaproject6

Doesn't Continental still have specific front and rear tires?

DropDeadFred

Spoonrobot 

I thought you wanted wider in the front and skinnier in the rear?

Rationale was that road vibrations are more tiring when coming through the arms than through the butt.

milkbaby

Leonard Zinn had a reply in a VeloNews column about wider tires in the back because it would be less important aerodynamically versus the tire in front which is hitting clean air. Actually, now that I looked it up, it seems like he's just saying a disc wheel in back gives up too much in weight versus what it could get you from aero.

https://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...-wheels_211990

Conti Attack/Force is 22/24 front/rear.

IthaDan 

Road bike wise, I guess depends on how vertical your riding position is (mine are paired, I like to rotate the front back when I get a new tire). Bmx and rigid mountain bikes usually have the bigger tire up front.

Debusama

You’re talking about the Force/Attack combo. Personally I don’t understand the rationale there. I know motor cycles and race cars will have larger tires on back so they get more traction during accelerations before the tire brakes lose. Since we aren’t going smoke the tires at the line on a bicycle, it would seem to make more sense to have the larger tire on the front so the larger contact patch can aid in cornering grip. I know I run a 2.4/2.2 combo on my mountain bike and it works great that way.

pdxtex

yeah i don't know enough about bike physics to say whether or not this would be beneficial. seems a skinny tire in front would aid aerodynamics and a wider tire in back would.....well, i dont know what it would do.....maybe would help you with wet weather climbing because of a larger contact patch in the back? the positive effects seem neglible for a road bike. anyone have any contrary evidence?

IthaDan 

On a road bike a big tire in the back catalyzed by a vertical-ish riding position gives you enough comfort that you don't need one of the hemorrhoid cushion seat covers or a grandma saddles.

Let's be realistic here for a second (in the 41? well I never!). How much positive impact could 2mm less frontal area have over the length of a bike's wheelbase, especially when you consider all the tubes, cables, bottles, legs, drivetrain parts and turbulence in the way? If you have an endless supplier or tires or don't pay for them yourself, by all means (the psychological benefit is probably more significant than the tangible one), but the aero effects hardly justify the specialization of parts which were formerly interchangeable with different wear intervals for the average rider. Then again, this is the 41, and we're all above average, right?

idc

^ yeah what IthaDan said. It's basically just "add width to the rear tire to save your ass" but then really you might as well run 25s up front too.

big chainring

Back in the tubular days, if you ran mismatched tires, which everyone did, you put the larger tire on front if possible. Rear wheel is stationary, front wheel does the steering, shock absorption, and has less weight on it. Notice how your rear tire wears faster than the front. A fat tire in back is just going to give you more rolling resistance. Aerodynamics? Come on. Man you guys are gullible!

sakonnetclip

I'm riding these this spring instead of my usual Corsa's. My rationale had more to do with that I wanted to try Conti's more than anything else. I'm not a lot of miles in but they're pretty comfortable tires and that extra width in the rear is discernible on rough parts of the road. The 22mm width up front is just a novelty, for me at least.

RT

In honor of this thread title sounding like the cycling version of a mullet, I offer this haiku:

My helmet is tight
As my glorious mullet
Flows from underneath

UCIMBZ

Why in the world you want to increase your friction with the road while your whole effort should be to increase efficiency?

chasm54

But actually, wider tyres roll better than skinnier ones. Skinny tyres are advantageous not because of their smaller contact point, but because they are lighter and slightly more aero.

ColinL

^^ correct. for a given tire available in multiple sizes, the wider size rolls better than the skinny.

I think I'd buy a pair of 25s and a single 23 for this kind of experiment. the rear tire not only wears faster, it's also more likely to suffer a tire-ending wound from road debris. I say this in the speculative sense because to this point I've always ridden matched pairs of 23s or 25s.

FrenchFit 

It simply works. Big guy, maybe panniers on the back, rough roads, a 28 on the back..maybe a hardcase tire, and a normal 25 on the front... sure. The bigger tire handles the weight better, the front tire keeps the steering light. Nothing to do with speed, but it can smooth out the ride of a heavy bike.

ColinL

another point- you can run less air pressure in the wider tire, so a 25 in back would certainly be more comfortable than a 23. I don't know that you give up a ton up front, since it should be already 10-20 psi lower than the pressure you run in the rear.

znomit

Correct.

KypD

Yup, but rolling resistance is lower on a wider tire (not AERO resistance, that's obviously greater), because it deforms less as it rolls assuming you're talking the same tire pressure on both widths. So that would make sense, achieving the slightly lower rolling resistance of having one wider tire without the drawback of increased drag.

Lots of articles out there on the subject.

GP 

I use different sized tires depending on what size tires I have on the shelf or got on sale. I prefer 25s, they give a softer ride, but don't notice any performance differences with 23s.