Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: awai04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    935

    Running a front tire wider than the rear -advantages / disadvantages?

    A friend and I were discussing the benefits of running a front tire one size wider than the rear, with benefits being that the slightly wider front would add to stability on the turns and yet minimize rolling weight in the rear. Any downsides or important considerations to the combination? Without having thought much about the topic, I tend to run equal width front /rear tires on my full suspension bike.
    It's not dirt in my apartment --it's Earth.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pizano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    57
    I tend to run equal... but have been debating a 2.1 front and 2.0 rear. 2.1 front for slightly more bite in corners. maybe not the huge difference you were considering?

    also curious what others think.

  3. #3
    Towlie for prez
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    623
    Bigger in front = oversteer aka the rear will lose traction 1st,easily correctible mid turn!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pizano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    57
    BUT.. is 2.1 over 2.0 really much of a diff to be considered big enough? I know 2.0 and 2.1 can measure as 2.1 or 2.0 (that being, some 2.0 and 2.1 are not what they claim) - but wonder if a 2.1 in front and 2.0 on rear is really much of a diff.. then again, maybe it is just enough.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BIGHORN LEW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    746
    well, i havebeen running a wider front tire for as long as i can remember. 10 years maybe? I usually dont run the same tread pattern front and rear, nor do I usually even run the same brand of tire front and rear. I look for a front tire thats gonna give me maximum hook-up in corners and downhill braking. you do have to consider the soil conditions you'll be rolling. on the rear I want good rolling and climbing traction. cornering knobs are important on the rear but not as vital as on the front.
    the only negative of course is more rolling mass on the front wheel. to me though the benifit of a larger footprint on the front is well worth it. right now i'm running a 2.5 front/2.35rear kenda nevagal set up. i don't like the nevagal as a rear tire so i will change it out.
    so yeah, start out with one or two sizes bigger on the front and save your existing front tire to run on the back as needed best-o-luck!
    RAM speed: UP, UP, and away....!

  6. #6
    Rider, Builder, Dreamer
    Reputation: sambs827's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,021
    I beat on all my rides, so tire pressure is a big deal to me. I tend to pinch flat quite a bit, so running high pressure is pretty necessary. On my hardtail I run 35-40 PSI even with a 2.35 Nevegal in the rear. Also, I have a big issue with the tires rolling out from under the rims. Start sliding out around a turn, you can correct it. Have the tire roll out from under the rim, good luck.

    I just like to run big tires PERIOD. I pretty much run the biggest tire that will clear the frame and fork. Fortunately this often happens to be a slightly bigger number in front than rear.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: awai04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    935
    I too am considering tires that are not much different: 2.1 and 2.25. The weight difference is 60 grams, which is a little or a lot depending on who's listening. However, I thought to post my question anyway, since it's an interesting topic in principle.

    Thanks for all the replies so far. Keep 'em coming!
    It's not dirt in my apartment --it's Earth.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pizano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    57
    no way I am running bigger than 2.1 since I will race them, I give up something for race needs...

    so for me, it would be 2.1 and 2.0.. no 2.25 + in my future.

    I might do Cobra 2.1 up front and Python 2.0 in rear.

  9. #9
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Pizano
    no way I am running bigger than 2.1 since I will race them, I give up something for race needs...

    so for me, it would be 2.1 and 2.0.. no 2.25 + in my future.

    I might do Cobra 2.1 up front and Python 2.0 in rear.
    The guy who got 2nd in the Houffalize World Cup two weekends back was riding 2.25s front and rear. The guy who got 3rd was riding a 2.4 front, and 2.2 rear.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pizano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke
    The guy who got 2nd in the Houffalize World Cup two weekends back was riding 2.25s front and rear. The guy who got 3rd was riding a 2.4 front, and 2.2 rear.
    what were they riding, do you know by chance?

    but, this does not prove that much really... same credentials have been had by guys riding 1.95, 2.0, 2.1....

    if anything, it even proves one point that 2 of the same size can win.. but we knew that, just like we knew 1.95 on up, all sizes really, have won races.

  11. #11
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,202
    Pretty much the only advantage is weight. The same size tire in the rear will give more traction than its smaller counterpart, and resist flats more.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pizano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkley
    Pretty much the only advantage is weight. The same size tire in the rear will give more traction than its smaller counterpart, and resist flats more.
    not sure I follow... your insinuating that the same size in the rear as that in the front some how "gives more traction" then say a smaller in the rear than the front? but since we are talking about the rear always being smaller, when you say " The same size tire in the rear will give more traction than its smaller counterpart," but it's smaller counterpart does not exist since, as the rear, it is the smallest of the 2 already.

    plus, not sure how flat resistance plays into the discussion of 2 different sized tires - that does not even take into consideration tire type or TPI or casing?? pretty vague statement.

    huh?

  13. #13
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,097
    Quote Originally Posted by awai04
    A friend and I were discussing the benefits of running a front tire one size wider than the rear, with benefits being that the slightly wider front would add to stability on the turns and yet minimize rolling weight in the rear. Any downsides or important considerations to the combination? Without having thought much about the topic, I tend to run equal width front /rear tires on my full suspension bike.
    Many attributes of tires are a compromise: larger volume is good for stability and being able to run lower pressure, but weighs more. Thinner sidewalls can save weight, but are more fragile. Meaty treads are great for traction, but are heavier and roll slower.

    Any tire is a compromise on all of these counts. The question then is what compromise makes the most sense front and rear. For some people (like me), high volume is more important in the front than the rear, because stability is more important there, as is the ability to run lower pressure. Therefore, I will sacrifice more on weight to get high volume up front than I will for the rear.

    Yeah, big tires on both ends would be great if they did not weigh any more than small tires, but weight DOES matter, so you add it where it helps the most.

    For other people, the optimum trad-off is around the same tire volume for front and rear.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  14. #14
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Pizano
    not sure I follow... your insinuating that the same size in the rear as that in the front some how "gives more traction" then say a smaller in the rear than the front? but since we are talking about the rear always being smaller, when you say " The same size tire in the rear will give more traction than its smaller counterpart," but it's smaller counterpart does not exist since, as the rear, it is the smallest of the 2 already.

    plus, not sure how flat resistance plays into the discussion of 2 different sized tires - that does not even take into consideration tire type or TPI or casing?? pretty vague statement.

    huh?
    See my point below. The point is not that the tire be the same size as the front, just that the optimum tire size turns out to be similar for the back than the front. Many of us are giving reasons why volume in the front is important (which for many of us are bigger than the benefits of high volume in the rear), I think he is giving a reason why it is also important in the back to him, and in the end gives him similar tire sizes.

    All else being equal, larger volume tire are more resistant to pinch flats. You have more weight on the rear tire, and tend to hit things harder with it, so if you want to run equal pressures front and rear, you would need a higher volume tire in the rear.

    I may be putting words in his mouth, but I think since many of us are talking about a smaller tire in the rear, he is essentially talking about going bigger in the rear than we are when he says "equal tires front and rear".
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  15. #15
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Pizano
    not sure I follow... your insinuating that the same size in the rear as that in the front some how "gives more traction" then say a smaller in the rear than the front? but since we are talking about the rear always being smaller, when you say " The same size tire in the rear will give more traction than its smaller counterpart," but it's smaller counterpart does not exist since, as the rear, it is the smallest of the 2 already.

    plus, not sure how flat resistance plays into the discussion of 2 different sized tires - that does not even take into consideration tire type or TPI or casing?? pretty vague statement.

    huh?
    re-phrasing....

    Let's say you have a set of the same tires in a 2.2 and a 2.0 size. The only advantage to running a 2.2F/2.0R combo is saving rotational weight on the rear tire. Putting a 2.2 in the rear will give you more traction than using a 2.0. It will also have a larger volume, so fewer pinch flats, and the ability to run lower pressure if trail conditions so dictate.

    The argument for a larger tire up front has always been that you need more traction in the front (for steering/control), and less in the rear. In my experience, not really true. Rear traction is just as important, especially when climbing. It becomes monumentally more important if you're riding in muddy/slick conditions. As an upstate NY rider, I need rear wheel traction. You don't see many riders on Small Block 8s in my neck of the woods, because climbs are often steep, loose and muddy. Consequently, I never understood why people were willing to give up rear wheel traction for such little benefit (maybe 50-75g per tire?).

    For a brief while I ran a 2.25F/1.95R combo of IRC Mibros. I had a muddy race the next day so I swapped out my super worn rear tire (2.25) with a brand new 1.95 I had laying around. The 1.95 was probably a better choice based on knob height, but I had to run higher pressure because it was a low-volume tire. So it may have been a draw in the end.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tornadom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    157
    I have run staggered sizes front and rear in the past; and frankly, will likely do so again because I am just unhappy with my current (cheap) tires. I can't provide any scientific reasons for prefering a narrow rear and wide front tire, but my personal "on the bike" preference is a 1.95-2.0 rear and something in the 2.1-2.2 range in the front. I tend to look for a slightly faster rear tire and a front tire that has good side bite and braking.

    Off topic, but most BMX riders (especially those on a Pro XL or larger frame) will be running a 1.75 rear and as much as a 2.25 front tire. My race bike runs a 20x1.75 Intense Micro knobbie in the rear and a 20x2.125 IRC Siren in the front.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,205
    Some people are now running larger tires in the rear of their hard tails. They choose the larger tire with a less aggressive and lower rolling resistance than the front. The advantage is a plusher and faster ride over rough terrain. Larger volume tires are faster over rough terrain.

  18. #18
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,825
    I felt a noticeable difference in bike geometry, changing from 2.4" front/2.25" rear to equal 2.2". It is not much but the steering got quicker.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,188
    Bigger front tires are great for bombing down gravelled fire roads...smaller ones will dig in and OTB you go.....

    Bigger front tires are great for getting down big rock gardens, they bounce better than little ones.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tornadom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by gvs_nz
    Some people are now running larger tires in the rear of their hard tails. They choose the larger tire with a less aggressive and lower rolling resistance than the front. The advantage is a plusher and faster ride over rough terrain. Larger volume tires are faster over rough terrain.
    I never gave it much thought, but that makes a lot of sense! My hardtail only has clearance for about a 2.1" tire in the rear; but if others frames will accommodate larger tires I can see how running a larger tire with a tad less pressure could give you a bit more cushion out yonder. Low rolling resistance, cushioning effect and that ever-so-sexy fat tire look are all worth the extra 60-100g weight gain from the skinnier tires.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    989
    I always go with a bigger and slightly knobbier tire in the front than the rear.. Weight is more of a concern on the rear, in addition to rolling resistance. I'd MUCH rather have my rear slide than my front, the other way around usually ends up in a crash. Currently running a 2.25 racing ralph snakeskin front/2.1 crossmark rear. Has been the perfect combo for the past year or so.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Tornadom
    I never gave it much thought, but that makes a lot of sense! My hardtail only has clearance for about a 2.1" tire in the rear; but if others frames will accommodate larger tires I can see how running a larger tire with a tad less pressure could give you a bit more cushion out yonder. Low rolling resistance, cushioning effect and that ever-so-sexy fat tire look are all worth the extra 60-100g weight gain from the skinnier tires.
    Yeh very common XC race config is a skinny Mountain King2.2 on the front and big volume Race King2.2 on the rear. Prior to that a Speed King2.3 on the rear. Also skinny Rocket Ron on the front and bigger volume Racing Ralph on the rear. Many other combos out there to get a bigger faster tire on the rear and a grippier tire on the front.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: canonshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    312
    I just started riding Maxxis Ignitor UST 2.35 F and Maxxis Crossmark UST 2.1 R.

    I do like the setup so far. Last few rides have been damp hardpack with some muddy/slick corners. Only slide-outs have been due to the fact that the Crossmark is not a good mud tire. When conditions are optimal I think the setup will shine!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: awai04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    935
    Been reading the posts and indeed, they are informative. Seems as though the points can be summarized below:

    Wider tire: increased traction, volume, stability

    Thinner tire: less rotational weight, and also less rolling resistence?
    It's not dirt in my apartment --it's Earth.

  25. #25
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,202
    Quote Originally Posted by awai04
    Been reading the posts and indeed, they are informative. Seems as though the points can be summarized below:

    Wider tire: increased traction, volume, stability

    Thinner tire: less rotational weight, and also less rolling resistence?
    Not necessarily. recent studies have shown that higher volume tires may roll better than lower volume ones. The question becomes, does the lesser rolling resistance offset the greater rotational weight?

    I'll try to dig up the article...

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
  •