Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridetheridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    466

    2.5 DHF / 2.3 Agressor alternatives

    Looking for a bit lighter and faster rolling combo for my long travel 29er.

    So far, I'm leaning toward 2.6 Rekon on front but not sure about the rear. Rekon 2.4, Forekaster 2.35 or Ardent 2.4 ? Anyone know the rolling resistance between those three ?

    Not necessarily tied to Maxxis. Open to suggestions.

    I'm also assuming the Rekon 2.6 will roll faster than the 2.5 DHF, i know it's quite a bit lighter.

    My conditions are front range , CO dry and rocky.
    The Mtn Bike App --> http://mtbphotoz.com

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sethd513's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    267
    I was about to try that combo then bontrager came out with the 2.6 se5. Iím running 2.6 se5 front and 2.4 se4 rear. Yes the 2.6 is about 1/8 inch taller off the rim but I have more controls and much faster then front and rear se5 2.3. Nice soft tires tons of grip


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,308
    I have been on a front DHF 29 x 2.5 3c & a Maxxis Aggressor 2.5 Dual for several sets. I had tried so many others and did appreciate some better rolling resistance of other tires but always missed the absolute traction.

    Lately (it's been flippin hot and humid here!) I have been very aware of the RR but also came to recognize that the rear Aggressor 2.5 almost had too much traction. Never letting go even when the front was gone.

    Carefully reading reviews, trying to decipher the infinite BS and differing opinions I settled on 2 replacements: the Specialized Butcher 2.6 (which I was glad only measures about 2.4 cause I don't think much of plus tires) & the new Hans Dampf soft snakeskin with a Pepi tire noodle installed (i'm a total WW but can roll a snakeskin right off a rim under hard cornering).

    I can't say which end offered how much improvement but it's my opinion both offered RR improvements. Essentially the front Butcher is like 5% less traction than the DHF. Noticeable but minor. It seems like it might want a bit less air pressure which I will experiment with too skate less.
    The rear HD probablly has like 15% less traction than the Aggressor but I really didn't need all that traction the Aggressor offered. So I really gave up little to nothing as far as traction goes. The rear HD feels a ton like the old WTB Breakout, with better wear hopefully.

    These tires are more narrow which I appreciate. The bike turned much quicker. I'm over plus tires!

    As far as RR, BIG improvement. Very happy, and bike is so much more sprightly. After one good ride on these things, I have a new favorite set up for sure. To try and quantitate the improvement, if a set of no traction super fast XC tires would be a 100% improvement in RR (not really attainable with proper tires) I'd say these tires gave me a solid 25% improvement in RR, which is huge!

    Some of those XC tires listed above aren't even in the same category so not sure why those are listed as possibly replacements for DHF/ Aggressor. They are for a different kind of riding/ bike.

    Take care

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Suns_PSD; 4 Weeks Ago at 08:05 AM.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    405
    How about xr4/se4 front and McFly rear?

    I'm running a 29x3 XR2 front with a 29x2.8 McFly rear and its great. Way more xc than the dhf, but that's what I was looking for.

    The xr4/se4 is a great all around tire.

    Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11
    I have been running a 2.6 Rekon up front with a 2.4 Ardent rear on my 27.5 bike for over a year and a half. It has been a great combo. I have never lacked for traction except in wet conditions which I really try and avoid. I had a 2.4 Ardent up front for awhile and the Rekon 2.6 is a noticeable improvement. But out back the Ardent rolls surprisingly well and has given me the traction that I need. My Ardent is about done so I am considering a replacement just to try something different. I also am thinking about either a 2.6 Rekon or 2.4 Rekon. Hard to find any reviews on the 2.4 version. I have tried heavier tires like the DHF and they do have more traction but for me I can ride longer with less energy on tires like the Rekon and Forekaster without traction issues. Suns_PSD post in the first paragraph summed it up best. There are other tires with better rolling resistance but he always missed out on the absolute traction of a DHF kind of tire. That is a completely accurate point of view. The DHF has awesome traction. But for me less rolling resistance was more important than absolute traction. I think with tires sometimes you just have to spend the $ and give them a shot and see what is best for you. I will say my wife has the 2.4 Bontrager XR4s and she loves them. Noticeably better traction than the Ardent up front but still rolls pretty well. And I believe you can try out Bontrager tires for 30 days and return them if you don't like them. I may try a 2.6 XR4/ 2.4 XR4 combo at some point myself. There really are some pretty good options out there.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: johnD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Spur11 View Post
    I have been running a 2.6 Rekon up front with a 2.4 Ardent rear on my 27.5 bike for over a year and a half. It has been a great combo. I have never lacked for traction except in wet conditions which I really try and avoid. I had a 2.4 Ardent up front for awhile and the Rekon 2.6 is a noticeable improvement. But out back the Ardent rolls surprisingly well and has given me the traction that I need. My Ardent is about done so I am considering a replacement just to try something different. I also am thinking about either a 2.6 Rekon or 2.4 Rekon. Hard to find any reviews on the 2.4 version. I have tried heavier tires like the DHF and they do have more traction but for me I can ride longer with less energy on tires like the Rekon and Forekaster without traction issues. Suns_PSD post in the first paragraph summed it up best. There are other tires with better rolling resistance but he always missed out on the absolute traction of a DHF kind of tire. That is a completely accurate point of view. The DHF has awesome traction. But for me less rolling resistance was more important than absolute traction. I think with tires sometimes you just have to spend the $ and give them a shot and see what is best for you. I will say my wife has the 2.4 Bontrager XR4s and she loves them. Noticeably better traction than the Ardent up front but still rolls pretty well. And I believe you can try out Bontrager tires for 30 days and return them if you don't like them. I may try a 2.6 XR4/ 2.4 XR4 combo at some point myself. There really are some pretty good options out there.
    I have XR 4 team issues on my bike , I don't think they roll that well. The rear is wearing out faster than any other tire I've ever had.

  7. #7
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,719
    You ride on rocks johnD? I love the grip and feel of Bontrager tires but they do wear fast in certain terrain. The vittoria Goma is similar to the XR4 and has excellent durability....but is 300g heavier.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: johnD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    You ride on rocks johnD? I love the grip and feel of Bontrager tires but they do wear fast in certain terrain. The vittoria Goma is similar to the XR4 and has excellent durability....but is 300g heavier.
    limestone rocks with loose over hard dirt in between also hardpack. do you think a goma or martello would work well for that type of terrain ?

  9. #9
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,719
    Yes, the Goma 2.4 is awesome for this terrain. The Martello I was less impressed loose over hard because the lugs are too close together and it skates over pebbles. But Goma will be heavier, and you need clearance for 2.6".

  10. #10
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,699
    Only caveat on the Goma - I find they stink on off camber grip.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: johnD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    Yes, the Goma 2.4 is awesome for this terrain. The Martello I was less impressed loose over hard because the lugs are too close together and it skates over pebbles. But Goma will be heavier, and you need clearance for 2.6".
    I've got plenty of clearance. Thanks brother.

  12. #12
    36 styles of danger
    Reputation: silentG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    413
    You didn't mentioned tubeless ready or not but I'm going to assume tubeless.

    Conti Trail King 2.4 or 2.2 Black Chili front/rear?

    I have used a number of these dudes in Arizona as front and rear tires and they roll well, are durable, and the grip/rubber stamina combination is good...generally better than Maxxis in my experience.

    Not cheap though and not 2.6 although the 2.4 TK is a large volume tire.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ridetheridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    466
    Leaning toward the 2.6 Rekon in the front and the 2.4 Ardent in the rear.
    The Mtn Bike App --> http://mtbphotoz.com

  14. #14
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,719
    Quote Originally Posted by silentG View Post
    You didn't mentioned tubeless ready or not but I'm going to assume tubeless.

    Conti Trail King 2.4 or 2.2 Black Chili front/rear?

    I have used a number of these dudes in Arizona as front and rear tires and they roll well, are durable, and the grip/rubber stamina combination is good...generally better than Maxxis in my experience.

    Not cheap though and not 2.6 although the 2.4 TK is a large volume tire.
    I've been scouring the German sites trying to figure out what happened to the 2.6 TK but no news yet!

  15. #15
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,926
    I ride rocky gnar in tire-killing Phoenix. I do experiment on occasion, but have typically been a DHF 2.5/DHRII 2.4 guy on all my 29ers. These tires are consistent, give great traction and I can depend on them.

    On a whim, I picked up a Bontrager SE4 29x2.4 for the rear. Nice volume, about 160 grams lighter than the DHRII Exo TR it replaced.

    First ride was today up and down National Trail at South Mountain in Phoenix. Thus far, I'm impressed. Obviously too soon to tell about longevity, but excellent traction and pedaled really, really well on my Ripmo.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    I ride rocky gnar in tire-killing Phoenix. I do experiment on occasion, but have typically been a DHF 2.5/DHRII 2.4 guy on all my 29ers. These tires are consistent, give great traction and I can depend on them.

    On a whim, I picked up a Bontrager SE4 29x2.4 for the rear. Nice volume, about 160 grams lighter than the DHRII Exo TR it replaced.

    First ride was today up and down National Trail at South Mountain in Phoenix. Thus far, I'm impressed. Obviously too soon to tell about longevity, but excellent traction and pedaled really, really well on my Ripmo.
    The 4s quickly became a dry favorite. We didn't get much of it this year. But hopefully next year will be better.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,217
    Look at the Michelin Wild AM and Wild Rock'r2. While I don't have the Wild AM, I do have the Wild Rock'r2 and that thing sticks like glue to most everything.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    I ride rocky gnar in tire-killing Phoenix. I do experiment on occasion, but have typically been a DHF 2.5/DHRII 2.4 guy on all my 29ers. These tires are consistent, give great traction and I can depend on them.

    On a whim, I picked up a Bontrager SE4 29x2.4 for the rear. Nice volume, about 160 grams lighter than the DHRII Exo TR it replaced.

    First ride was today up and down National Trail at South Mountain in Phoenix. Thus far, I'm impressed. Obviously too soon to tell about longevity, but excellent traction and pedaled really, really well on my Ripmo.
    I'm not sure what size DHRII exo tr you had on but the SE4 29x2.4 claimed weight is 905g. To shave 160g off a DHRII exo tr the SE4 would need to weigh under 800g in one case or under 700g in another. Could you confirm?

  19. #19
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,926
    The SE4 was 866 grams out of package (29x2.4). The 29x2.4 DHR WT TR Exo was ~1020 grams after I cleaned it.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    The SE4 was 866 grams out of package (29x2.4). The 29x2.4 DHR WT TR Exo was ~1020 grams after I cleaned it.
    Thank you. The SE4 still has me interested but I was soo hoping you would confirm it was sub 800g.

  21. #21
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,926
    I think that would be the XR4. I was stoked for mid-800s. If itís still alive 6 weeks from now, itíll be a winner.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,159
    ^Yeah 866G is really really good for a tire with SE's reputation. I've not met anybody that doesn't like them. I think SE5/4 will be my next combo though the E-13 will be hard to top up front for my riding.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  23. #23
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,926
    Checking back in. SE5 is still alive. Fingers crossed, but Iím pleased with this tire.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  24. #24
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,401
    Magic Mary in now available in 29x2.6 soft. Would make a killer front tire with a hans dampf on the back.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    60
    My only issue with the 29er DHF 2.5 wt, now that Iíve just mounted it, is that itís puny compared to the Aggressor 2.5 wt. Granted, Iím coming off a 27.5+ Knobby Nic 2.8, but, especially for the weight, I feel like it could be a bigger volume. Itís actually a few mm narrower than the Aggressor at tread base and max nubby. Funny, bc I loved it on my previous bike, Tallboy, but at the time 2.3 was max aggressor. Spoiled with fattiness by now, I guess.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-13-2018, 02:06 PM
  2. DHF 2.5 WT vs DHF 2.6 WT
    By SonomaBiker in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-09-2017, 06:59 AM
  3. DHF/DHF or another combo?
    By agreenbike in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-07-2017, 11:24 PM
  4. Dhf ust or standard dhf 2 ply for tubeless
    By trap121 in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-04-2013, 10:08 PM
  5. Minion DHF/DHF or DHF/DHR for Downieville?
    By Taz8 in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 02:22 PM

Members who have read this thread: 214

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.