Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    76

    2.4" tire F & R = problem???

    I am a clyde and have just purchased Maxxis Advantage 2.4 F and R. Will this size be a problem for the rear? I am already the one of the slowest in the pack, will this slow me down even further?

  2. #2
    Former Bike Wrench
    Reputation: mtnbiker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,985
    I like that, tires are the reason I am slow...not my weight!

    Seriously though, what is it your concerned about...rolling resistance or weight?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hardtail Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker72
    I like that, tires are the reason I am slow...not my weight!

    Seriously though, what is it your concerned about...rolling resistance or weight?

    I think he's talking about Fit as in if the 2.4" tire will fit his rear frame...

    I could be wrong...
    Upgrade what you need, not what you Want.

  4. #4
    some know me as mongo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    613
    the 2.4" tire should fit fine in the frame and it should not hit the chain even in 1,9 gearing. though the frame clearance could be na issue but most frames now a days can use 2.4" tires just fine.

    as for the rolling resistance. yes it will be more but not by too much over a 2.1" tire. on pure xc i still prefer a 2.1" because the ones that i use just plain haul ass. on my AM bike i run either kenda 2.35" (which are actually bigger than the maxxis 2.4") or a swt of kenda 2.5" which actually makes the small ring pretty useless as the tire will rub in many combos at times.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker72
    I like that, tires are the reason I am slow...not my weight!

    Seriously though, what is it your concerned about...rolling resistance or weight?
    I know I am slower because of my weight, I am trying not to add variables to be any slower. I was concerned about the rolling resistance.

    Anyway...Thanks

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    377
    Without knowing what frame you have, there's no way to know if the tire will fit. Even then its a guess- but as others said, it probably will, at least in any newer frame with any pretions to "all mountain" use.

    Without knowing what tires you currently run, and what pressure, and what you ride on, there's no way to say if the rolling resistance will be more or less. And even if the rolling resistance is higher, that doesn't always slow you down; improvements gained by lower pressure (meaning smooter rolling on trail irregularities) and better handling / traction could offset that.

    Generally the guy with the widest tires do go the slowest in an XC setting, yes. Then again, getting a flat or crashing slows you down a hell of a lot more, as does never riding in the first place. My advice is try a lot of tires, see what you like, and don't fret being among the slower riders; riding more will make you faster (and also wear out those tires).

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Fungazi
    Without knowing what frame you have, there's no way to know if the tire will fit. Even then its a guess- but as others said, it probably will, at least in any newer frame with any pretions to "all mountain" use.

    Without knowing what tires you currently run, and what pressure, and what you ride on, there's no way to say if the rolling resistance will be more or less. And even if the rolling resistance is higher, that doesn't always slow you down; improvements gained by lower pressure (meaning smooter rolling on trail irregularities) and better handling / traction could offset that.

    Generally the guy with the widest tires do go the slowest in an XC setting, yes. Then again, getting a flat or crashing slows you down a hell of a lot more, as does never riding in the first place. My advice is try a lot of tires, see what you like, and don't fret being among the slower riders; riding more will make you faster (and also wear out those tires).
    Thankyou...

    I am riding a Kona King Kikapu. I think the tire should fit. My other tires were the Bontragers I got off of my Trek 4500. They were 26 X 2.24. These are the only other tires I have ridden.

    I am going to try these tires out and hopefully they will be the cats meow, like others have stated. I was just worried about using the same size F and R cause others seem to use a wider up front and skinnier ot back. I just thought that was better. Sorry for the noobie post, but I am learning. Thanks again...

  8. #8
    Making fat cool since '71
    Reputation: ImaKlyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,828
    The advantages roll pretty decent for what they are. They are not a mud tire or anything so they aren't going to be super slow. Don't apologize for a newbie post. Frame/make/model is just important to know. For example: in my '93 Raleigh MTB I can barely (just barely...) get a 2.3 WTB Timberwolf (good OR wet season tire...slower than hell in dry though) but in my 08 GT turned SS I can get a 2.5 Timberwolf (again, barely) and on my RFX I can almost get a 2.7 Timberwolf and have plenty of room with the 2.5 though I do get some minor tire rub when in inner-ring and granny out back.

    Welcome bro and ride the hell out of that thing...enjoy the ride as they say!

    Brock...
    Are the wheels roundish? Ride it.

    Disciples Of Dirt, come ride with us.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: paul r nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    34
    Don't forget that the 2.4" from Maxxis may be a different actual size and comparable to, say, a Michelin 2.3 or a Bontrager 2.7. I am amazed that the standardization is as consistent as Oprah's eating habits.
    Visit Ted's Broken Bike and Refurbished Unicycle Emporium

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,192
    I ran a Trailbear 2.5 on the rear no prob. I put a Panaracer Fire FR 2.4 on and it rubbed slightly. Depends on the tire manf. Get it and try it. CHEERS!
    Oldest daughter doesn't ride, she fights MMA.

  11. #11
    Former Bike Wrench
    Reputation: mtnbiker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,985
    I was thinking, given the 2550 gram wheelset you have...the 2.4" tires are going to make little difference in speed.

    The Advantage is a pretty good rolling tire for an aggressive tread so I'd just roll them

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    377
    [QUOTE=medik13]I was just worried about using the same size F and R cause others seem to use a wider up front and skinnier ot back. I just thought that was better.[QUOTE]

    People run wider tires in front for better traction; if the front washes out in a turn, you crash, while if the back looses traction (rare in turns if you are not braking) you usually just skid / can't climb. There's also tires with designs that work better for turning (front specific) and better for putting power into the dirt (rear specific).

    The Maxxis advatage 2.4s (like most tires) aren't really specialized for either role, and should work fine as a front & rear set. Having a wide tire in the back can be an advantage for heavier riders, as the extra volume can help avoid pinchflats. If you find it helps you, running a wider tire in back than front is just fine.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    76
    Rode them for the first time today. Mechanic said the rear MAY rub but the bike was OK to ride. After I took it out, I noticed the paint on the rear triangle by the top of the tire, had rubbed off. Also, the Tora 318 showed signs of rubbing too. I am now looking for another tire, maybe not as aggresive this time, low rolling resitance, and possibly a 2.35 or 2.25.

    BTW, I have read the Advantages run bigger than other 2.4's ???

  14. #14
    Dirt Deviant
    Reputation: savagemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,694
    I'm gonna give the Conti Mountain King 2.4's a try. I hear they run small. More like a 2.2 or 2.3, which is cool with me.
    I have kenda nevegal and excavator 2.35 on my other bike, and those are some big 2.35 tires. Close to some other 2.4 or 2.5 tires I have seen.

  15. #15
    Captain Underpants
    Reputation: Random Drivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,300
    You should try the Ardents.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,980
    Thanks for the tips guys.
    roccowt.
    rocnbikemeld

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker72
    I like that, tires are the reason I am slow...not my weight!
    Are you kidding me???

    My experiment is over a one week period. After riding a couple days on the Advantages 2.4's. I concluded that the bike felt slugish. I experimented with tire pressures, and found when I lowered the pressures to ~ 30PSI, I was gliding over obstacles but feeling sluggish. The speed would increase slightly with increased pressures.

    Then came the 2.5 Maxxis High Rollers, which I tried after the Advantages and noticed a speed difference immediatley. The 2.5 High Rollers were considerably smaller than the 2.4 tires mentioned above and felt faster too.

    Then a bell went off and led me to try my old Bontragers 2.2. I went from the second to the last rider in the pack of 9 to the fouth position rider, consistantly. Everyone is commenting on how much faster I am after the switch of tires. I was also the only one in the pack with wide tires.

    So in a nutshell, YES, I think wider tires do slow you down! I think its because the contact patch of the wider tire adds more friction which creates more rolling resistance, thus making your pedaling power have to increase to match the speed of a skinnier tire with less contact patch. It seems like I am putting less effort in pedaling to be faster than before. The bike felt sluggish with the 2.4 Advantages and ARE much faster with the 2.2's.

    Next will be 2.1 Crossmarks...
    Last edited by medik13; 03-15-2009 at 09:01 AM.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bongo_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    103
    I went to 2.4's from always riding 2.1's and I'm thrilled. I like running the bigger tires with a higher pressure. I't s a smoother, more controlled ride.

    I don't care what my position in a pack is, I'm not a dog. I don't get paid based on my speed when I'm riding.

    bb

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    76
    Well the whole idea of running a bigger, higher volume, tire is so you can run a lower pressure. But whatever floats your boat buddy!!!

    Heck, if you like them that much, I'll sell you the pairs of 2.4's and 2.5's I have.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bongo_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    103
    Yeah, I like to run the pressure around 40 or so, but on the smaller tires it's too hard. On the bigger tires I can get close to that and not be rocked off the trail and still have some grip. Lower pressure just makes it harder to drag my ass up the hill.

    I've got some tires right now, thanks.

    bb

Posting Permissions

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