Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    143

    Different tire front than back?

    I've been reading a lot of reviews on tire selection and have noticed that a lot of you run a different tire front than back and vice versa. Which I get. What I don't get is the reasoning for running an aggressive knobby tire up front and a seemingly not so aggressive tire (or one with a lesser rolling resistance) in the back. I would expect that the knobbier tire would be better suited out back since that's where the power is transferred and you would naturally want the majority of the grip out there, especially while climbing. Why would you want the grip in the front? Understandably you'd want it in the front for the descent, but then why not just put aggressive front and back?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    143
    Cool understood. Appreciate the help!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fireball_jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    301
    Your front does the turning, and if your front tire washes out, you're SOL. If the back washes out, it's pretty easy to correct. It's also easy to put weight over the rear tire when necessary, not so much with the front. Also, the front does the majority of the braking, which means you want something that's going to dig in when you clamp down on the lever.

    The rear really just needs to be good enough that it doesn't spin out on climbs, but if you've ever run less agressive tires, you'd find out that you really don't need much back there to hold traction.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ScottyJ7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    135
    Well I go knobby front and rear.... that is just how I roll !!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,340
    you want your front tire to always have maximum traction. You don't want your front tire breaking loose before your back tire, which is why a lot run a size larger up front.

    You feel rolling resistance a lot more on the back tire, so you try to minimize that, while using a tread that matches the terrain/conditions to still hook up. A sloppy trail, and a dry hard pack trail requires different tread, for maximum efficiency.

    I always run an aggressive tire up front, just for piece of mind, but try to get as fast a rolling tire, as I can get away with, in the back.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    143
    Interesting. I haven't yet seen the wider tire up front but it of course makes sense. I'm still in the transition from road biking and the consensus there, if anything, was wider in the back.

    Care to share a sample set-up?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fireball_jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by cave12man View Post
    Interesting. I haven't yet seen the wider tire up front but it of course makes sense. I'm still in the transition from road biking and the consensus there, if anything, was wider in the back.

    Care to share a sample set-up?
    Completely different concerns in road bike land. If you lose an edge on a road bike, you're on the ground, there's not a huge soft-surface traction concern, especially on racing tires. Also, road tires were, for a while, so narrow that the tires were actually pulled back to the rim, reducing the contact patch, due to the thought that less tire on the road means less resistance. Also, due to the geometry (and weight) of a road bike, it's very easy, if you're sprinting out of saddle, to un-weight the rear wheel and cause traction issues.

    As for not having seen it, most manufacturer's don't run the staggered setup (unless they do on a DH bike), but in general people will run one size larger in the front (I run a 2.5 Minion up front, a 2.35 Holy Roller in the back). This also came about because for a while you had larger tires hitting the market with frames that couldn't fit them, but forks that could, so people would run a 2.35 in the front and a 2.1 out back simply due to clearance issues.

  8. #8
    agu
    agu is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: agu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by cave12man View Post
    Care to share a sample set-up?
    Some combos I've used include:
    A) Maxxis Ardent 2.25 front, Maxxis Aspen 2.1 rear; both tires on Velocity Blunt SL rims

    B) Schwalbe Nobby Nic 2.25 front, Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25 rear; front rim is a Velocity P35 and rear is a Blunt SL

    *The P35 is a 35mm wide rim, while the Blunt SL is 25mm wide.

    C) Maxxis Ignitor 2.1 front, Maxxis Ikon 2.2 rear; front rim is a Velocity P35 and rear is a Blunt SL. Note that even though the Ikon is listed as wider, it measures up close to the "narrower" Ignitor.

    I liked Combo A for it's straight line and hardpack trail speed, but the Ardents didn't seem to corner too well.

    Combos B & C work for a wider variety of trail conditions, with C being the more budget friendly option. I still have the Blunt SL front wheel, which is lighter than the P35, for "racing".

    Note that I run these on a rigid 29er singlespeed, so your mileage may vary.

    Welcome to the dirt.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,350
    Quote Originally Posted by cave12man View Post

    Care to share a sample set-up?
    I run a Specialized Purgatory 2.4" up front, and Specialized Captain 2.2" in the rear.

    On a prior 26" bike, I had a Kenda Nevegal up front, and a Kenda Slant 6 or Small Block 8 in the back. On that bike I could only fit 2.2's on front and back.

    I went 2.4" up front because I benefit from this where I ride. I could get away with it on the back too, but not super necessary. If you don't need to do that, a 2.2 on front will tend to roll quicker, other things equal

  10. #10
    max_29
    Reputation: max_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by cave12man View Post

    Care to share a sample set-up?
    Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4 front
    Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25 rear

  11. #11
    Trail Prospector
    Reputation: Flyin_W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,839

    Grip vs. Slip

    1000 words...

    Ardent 2.4 (f) // Saguaro 2.2 (r)
    The best is the one you want to ride most often..

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyin_W View Post
    1000 words...

    Ardent 2.4 (f) // Saguaro 2.2 (r)
    Bravo

  13. #13
    No pain no gain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by agu View Post
    Some combos I've used include:
    A) Maxxis Ardent 2.25 front, Maxxis Aspen 2.1 rear; both tires on Velocity Blunt SL rims

    B) Schwalbe Nobby Nic 2.25 front, Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25 rear; front rim is a Velocity P35 and rear is a Blunt SL

    *The P35 is a 35mm wide rim, while the Blunt SL is 25mm wide.

    C) Maxxis Ignitor 2.1 front, Maxxis Ikon 2.2 rear; front rim is a Velocity P35 and rear is a Blunt SL. Note that even though the Ikon is listed as wider, it measures up close to the "narrower" Ignitor.

    I liked Combo A for it's straight line and hardpack trail speed, but the Ardents didn't seem to corner too well.

    Combos B & C work for a wider variety of trail conditions, with C being the more budget friendly option. I still have the Blunt SL front wheel, which is lighter than the P35, for "racing".

    Note that I run these on a rigid 29er singlespeed, so your mileage may vary.

    Welcome to the dirt.
    I am interested in knowing which tire is faster as a REAR tire on dry, relatively hard pack trail conditions... the Racing Ralph or the Maxxis Ikon?? Which FRONT tire do you like more... the Nobby Nic, or the Ignitor??
    Last edited by gregoryb02; 06-15-2012 at 10:39 AM. Reason: add more text

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    143
    Ended up buying 2 nevegals and a buddy is going to let me try a slant six for the rear if i don't like running both nevegals. we'll see!

  15. #15
    agu
    agu is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: agu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryb02 View Post
    I am interested in knowing which tire is faster as a REAR tire on dry, relatively hard pack trail conditions... the Racing Ralph or the Maxxis Ikon?? Which FRONT tire do you like more... the Nobby Nic, or the Ignitor??
    Hi there. The dry test may have to wait I guess, as the rainy season is starting in this part of the world!

    On dry, hard packed conditions I'd expect the Ikon to be faster. Regarding front tires I prefer the NN over the Ignitor, due to it's more aggressive and wider profile. Note that these two statements were made on the tires' looks alone...real world testing once it gets drier.

  16. #16
    agu
    agu is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: agu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by cave12man View Post
    Ended up buying 2 nevegals and a buddy is going to let me try a slant six for the rear if i don't like running both nevegals. we'll see!
    Nice. Nevegal front, S6 on the rear. I've seen some riders use an SB8 on the rear as well.

    Don't forget to play with tire pressures too!

  17. #17
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,020
    most bikers put down less than .5 hp so spinning out a less aggressive rear tire is not a valid concern.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,598
    I use a Rocket Ron 2.25 up front and Racing Ralph 2.1 in the rear of my HT.
    14 S-Works Epic WC
    14 Yeti ARC
    14 S-Works Crux Disc
    15 Echo Big Deal

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,248
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul View Post
    most bikers put down less than .5 hp so spinning out a less aggressive rear tire is not a valid concern.
    Unless you're climbing the loss stuff on a single speed.

  20. #20
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,020
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    Unless you're climbing the loss stuff on a single speed.
    i meant in regards to the amount of power one can put down. spinning out a tire on a climb is more due to a loss of traction.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by b-kul View Post
    i meant in regards to the amount of power one can put down. spinning out a tire on a climb is more due to a loss of traction.
    I'd love to see a vid of someone doing a sustained burn-out in the flats.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    143
    On another note I now have a pair of Nano 29ers that I don't need if anyone wants them!

  23. #23
    usually cranky
    Reputation: b-kul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,020
    Quote Originally Posted by cave12man View Post
    I'd love to see a vid of someone doing a sustained burn-out in the flats.
    if you you tube "arab drift" there are some kids who geared their bikes super low and actually "burn out" on a road.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    143
    Now that.....is hilarious. And awesome.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,598
    14 S-Works Epic WC
    14 Yeti ARC
    14 S-Works Crux Disc
    15 Echo Big Deal

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •