Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Trip the Bike Fantastic
    Reputation: Cycledelic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    588

    mutanoraptor riders...

    mutanoriders already know how funky the tire sizings are - the 2.4 is no wider than the 2.24, just lighter, taller and with a less aggressive tread.

    If you ride a mix of these two tires, which do you have up front?

    My instinct is to mount the 2.24 forward, and the faster-rolling 2.4 in the back. But I'm a little worried that the thin casing of the 2.4 won't last, and the 2.24 in the back will slow me down too much. what did you do?

  2. #2
    bike dork extraordinaire
    Reputation: sirkrameroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycledelic
    mutanoriders already know how funky the tire sizings are - the 2.4 is no wider than the 2.24, just lighter, taller and with a less aggressive tread.

    If you ride a mix of these two tires, which do you have up front?

    My instinct is to mount the 2.24 forward, and the faster-rolling 2.4 in the back. But I'm a little worried that the thin casing of the 2.4 won't last, and the 2.24 in the back will slow me down too much. what did you do?
    I wouldn't mix the two, since they are so different. I've run a Mutano 2.4 front, Nanoraptor 2.1 rear, which is a good combo for light and fast rolling, but isn't as durable. The Mutano 2.24 I've used as a back tire with either a Weirwolf 2.3 or Timberwolf 2.3 front. Much heavier and slower, but great traction and durability.

  3. #3
    eBiker
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,102
    I've done 2.24 back and 2.14 front (smaller lighter version similar to 2.4). And they did pretty well together.

    The 2.4 can have some tremendous grip, but one has to go low in pressure. For me it made the tire rolly on the rim, which made me feel unconfident.

    2.4 f and 2.24 r would work fine depending on riding and trail conditions. Different treads, but front and rear tires do different things.

    I cut a 2.4 on the rear on the first ride (it was very rocky tho) the cuts were in the tread only.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skywaybuzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    616
    2.4 for dry front is great for like Florida trails. The 2.24 is just ok rear tire, again dry only. I'm in PA so I would never run either when its wet.
    Weirwolf are nice all around front only, I still like the velociraptor rear. kenda Nevagal 2.35 DTC are good for Big Mt. Again rear.

  5. #5
    Klydesdale
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycledelic
    mutanoriders already know how funky the tire sizings are - the 2.4 is no wider than the 2.24, just lighter, taller and with a less aggressive tread.

    If you ride a mix of these two tires, which do you have up front?

    My instinct is to mount the 2.24 forward, and the faster-rolling 2.4 in the back. But I'm a little worried that the thin casing of the 2.4 won't last, and the 2.24 in the back will slow me down too much. what did you do?
    What's this about the 2.4's not being any wider? Right now I have a couple of 2.4s and a 2.24 setup on wheels with XM819 UST Disc rims. The casing on the 2.4 is at least 1/8" wider than the 2.24.. The tread width on the 2.4 may not be any wider but the casing certainly is according to my calipers.

    If I use two different sized tires, I prefer the 2.4 up front and the 2.24 in back rather than the other way around as the bike just handles better that way. But I REALLy prefer a 2.4 both front and back. That extra volume is nice to have in a rear tire on my hardtail.

    As far as the 2.4s thin casing not lasting... Well I've been using these tires ever since they came out and ran them in tubeless mode on standard rims with Stan's sealant for two years at 40-45 psi without a sidewall failure. (Did I mention I'm 6' 5" and 250 lbs) Last year, when I built the wheels with XM819 UST Disc wheels, I switched to Hutchinson Python 2.0 UST tires. But after pinchflatting or otherwise destroying the sidewalls on four of the Python UST in less than a year, I installed the Mutanos with some Stan's and have been happily riding them again. It's kinda hard to believe, but the Mutanos are sturdier tubeless tires for me than some "real" UST tires.

  6. #6
    Trip the Bike Fantastic
    Reputation: Cycledelic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    588

    thanx

    thanx for all your replies. you've given me more to think about. i think i will switch my setup and put the 2.4 in front soon. klyde- i think if you're right about the 2.4 tracking better, than it will be a no-brainer. i trust your caliper measurement, and only measured the treads with a ruler to compare. good 2 know that the stans work well with these. I tried mounting the 2.4 at first and it didn't work - i'm stretching the rubber out now with a tube, and will be retrying soon.

    regardless, there's a lot more vertical rubber, which makes me worry about cutting it up on the rocky shale on some of the trails nearby.

    I hear you with the extra plushness of the 2.4, but I ride a softtail so I get a couple of inches of comfort there. and if mr. p is blowing out the side (was that at downieville?), then I might do so too.

    i rode a 2.2 in back about a year ago, with a panaracer FR 2.4 in front, and remember it feeling like i was dragging around a bag of lead. but oh well, back to the old habits. that'll get me back into shape, right?

    skyway, what do you mean by florida trails? Is that dry and sandy or wet and swampy? I've never ridden there.

  7. #7
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,168

    2.4" Mutano...

    ...IMO best xc-trail tire ever. Fast, very fast and can be run at low pressure. I've ridden mine on some brutal, rocky PA terrain and they are still going strong. I weigh 180 and put some heavy duty trail riding on these tires. The only time I'd worry about using these tires is in the deep mud. I have dozens of barely used tires in my shed because none have measured up to the Mutano. Now, if you don't care about cruzing along at speed and are more into and aggressive, cover-up-my-mistakes type tires these aren't the best choice.

    Mike

  8. #8
    Trip the Bike Fantastic
    Reputation: Cycledelic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    588

    WTB response

    They said:

    "It's recommended to run the 2.24 in the rear and the 2.4 in the front. The
    2.24 has larger air volume. "

    I would have thought the 2.4 had more air volume.

    Rode today with the 2.4 in the back. It really hooked up, and rolled faster than I remember the 2.24 ever doing. Maybe I'll keep it like this for a few weeks.

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,113
    I am running a 2.4 in tubeless mode with Stan's on a Crossmax XL on the BACK of a Nomad.... Hehe... it does not hold air well, but it is soooo light and just keeps hangin' in there. The sidewalls don't look too great, and the Stans does seep out all over. The tread has never given me trouble, but it is a bit thin.

    I had one EXPLODE off the same rim before. Like a bomb.

    I still like the tire. It must be because when I am riding on it, it hooks up.

Posting Permissions

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