Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 241 of 241
  1. #201
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,752

    MAXXIS Aggressor....

    I would say the volume of the Aggressor is slightly bigger, speed is about the same, but traction and casing suppleness is improved. The Purgs clear mud a little better. The Aggressor brakes better. The DHR2 is much better in wet conditions although an Aggressor is not scary when caught out in the rain unexpectedly. A Morsa rolls faster and has comparable traction but I've only run it at Sedona on the rear. Of course the Aggressor has better traction when damp.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    I would say the volume of the Aggressor is slightly bigger, speed is about the same, but traction and casing suppleness is improved. The Purgs clear mud a little better. The Aggressor brakes better. The DHR2 is much better in wet conditions although an Aggressor is not scary when caught out in the rain unexpectedly. A Morsa rolls faster and has comparable traction but I've only run it at Sedona on the rear. Of course the Aggressor has better traction when damp.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Morsa is faster than the Agressor?

  3. #203
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,752
    Yes IMO. I wish it was as light as the Ardent 2.4 but it performs better and the heavier casing is reassuring on my Switchblade. I'll probably run the Ardent this summer on the rear when riding the east coast.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    64
    Ordered

  5. #205
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,231
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
    Yes IMO. I wish it was as light as the Ardent 2.4 but it performs better and the heavier casing is reassuring on my Switchblade. I'll probably run the Ardent this summer on the rear when riding the east coast.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    How's the casing on the Morsa? I've been interested in trying it but thought people in another thread were saying that it tore really easily. Visually it looks perfect for a rear for me.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    388
    Rode Fort Ord today in NORCAL-----conditions really mixed. The aggressors are good in the dry---pitiful in the sand---and a bit iffy in the wet. I actually think with these mixed conditions the Ardents I took off would have been better. But hopefully it is not to long until we have dry conditions and then the aggressors seem to come into their own.

  7. #207
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by WHALENARD View Post
    How's the casing on the Morsa? I've been interested in trying it but thought people in another thread were saying that it tore really easily. Visually it looks perfect for a rear for me.
    It seems tough. I have a superficial cut which I suspect would of mortality wounded an Ardent.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    843
    How many miles are folks getting out of their Aggressors before they need to be replaced?

  9. #209
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,752
    Much better than a Morsa in Arizona. I think it wears well and provides better traction than the Morsa. The Morsa is faster but I thought I remembered it had better traction although I rode it early in the season when it was less dusty. Sorry, I canít give mileage.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    78
    Just replaced my 2.3 dhf (3c)/aggressor combo with a 2.3 dhf(3c)/dhf (dual compound) combo, honestly the two tires combos are the closest to each other that I have ever tried. Both seem to roll about the same actually, which is weird, I felt in some spots like it might have been a tiny bit more effort to pedal the dhf uphill or on the flats but at the same time rode at my normal pace, so I think I was imagining things. The seemingly extra volume of the 2.3 dhf meant I was noticeably faster through the looser downhill terrain, and the dual dhf combo has insane cornering, so much so now with the rear that I have to be careful to not wash out the front. Luckily I only did so on a leaf-covered, slow speed, and very sharp corner. But these combined made for some awesome downhill sections and pretty good flat riding.

    I've been a huge fan of the aggressor and dhf combo but the dual dhf option was pretty much equal or even better in some ways. The aggressor holds the advantage in braking on hardpack, the dhf skids way more on hardpack during braking than the aggressor, but does pretty good in looser conditions. I felt that on hardpack, the new dhf had worse skidding under braking than a aggressor with about 20 rides on it, but the dhf was okay or good in other conditions. Also, when leaning the tire over down a hill covered with loose gravel, the gap between the side and center knobs of the dhf seems a bit sketchier than cornering with the aggressor, but there's only a few corners in any of my riding areas that are similar to this so its not a problem really. The dhf is also known to be pretty good in the wet while the aggressor is worse, though in the summer conditions I had the aggressor hit wet and muddy patches just fine with no issue to be concerned, so maybe the aggressor is better in wet than claimed.

    I feel like the dhf/aggressor is marginally better for dry, more hardpacked conditions while the dhf/dhf combo is better for looser and perhaps wetter conditions. In most conditions they should be pretty close. I'll have to see on upcoming rides but I do think the dhf/aggressor combo will pedal a tiny bit quicker on flat trails, I need to do a lot more riding though including a lot more downhill.

    So, I only have initial impressions to go on then, it could be that after more rides I discover that I liked the aggressor way better, but for now i'm leaning back towards dual dhf.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adodero View Post
    How many miles are folks getting out of their Aggressors before they need to be replaced?
    I probably had about 190-200 miles on mine before I replaced it, it first started to skid a tiny bit under braking then seemed like it was losing some cornering traction. I probably could have got quite a few more rides out of it but didn't want to end up with a highly worn dhf on the front and new dhf on the rear, so I just replaced the aggressor while the front dhf was new. The aggressor did have pretty good longevity, its just its performance was starting to decrease so at that point I usually change tires. Also it looked like the sidewall was about to start leaking sealant through some of the raised imprint on the tire (I think where it says 29x2.3 or something like that) based on the way it looked, so a few more rides and the whole casing may have started to leak. But riding at low pressures like I do on maxxis tires, this seems like it always happens , it happened at 25 rides on my original front dhf but I think only around the low 20's on a dhr2. The aggressor lasted longer than the dhr2 for sure but part of that could have been how I was riding the dhr2.

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by agreenbike View Post
    Just replaced my 2.3 dhf (3c)/aggressor combo with a 2.3 dhf(3c)/dhf (dual compound) combo, honestly the two tires combos are the closest to each other that I have ever tried.
    Recently did the same thing and your observations seem to mirror mine.
    Dual DHF really does make the bike feel balanced and predictable. And magically like you said it doesn't seem to roll much differently than the aggressor.

  12. #212
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,369
    Thanks for the responses, I love a DHF x 2, it can indeed seem magical at times, but with tires especially, the grass is always greener when new alternatives appear. Hearing from riders who have experience on both is very helpful

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by ac1000 View Post
    Recently did the same thing and your observations seem to mirror mine.
    Dual DHF really does make the bike feel balanced and predictable. And magically like you said it doesn't seem to roll much differently than the aggressor.
    Awesome, I was left kind of scratching my head like "this can't be right" but good to hear i'm not alone in thinking this. If these trends hold up on other trails then the DHF/DHF will be my favorite combo ever but by just a small amount it seems. I've tried most maxxis tires (ardent race, ardent, dhf, dhr2, hr2, aggressor) and not much else, so maybe i'll find something better from other brands, but for now I think a dhf front and specialized semi slick (butcher?) would be at the top of my list to test next dry season, otherwise both dhf/dhf and dhf/aggressor are pretty good!

    Its like the dhf/dhr2 that everyone loves I thought was good but not my best option, it seems the dhf/dhf was very popular before the dhr2 came out but then is not mentioned much online since then, I've been wanting to try it though since that's what came stock on ibis hd3's which seemed good. To me the dhr2 always seemed drifty when cornerning and somewhat sketchy when you get on the side in the wet, in fact I wiped out pretty hard in the wet on one of my first rides ever with it so I never trusted it for wet since then. I like more precise cornering so the dhf or aggressor seem better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post
    Thanks for the responses, I love a DHF x 2, it can indeed seem magical at times, but with tires especially, the grass is always greener when new alternatives appear. Hearing from riders who have experience on both is very helpful
    I second the grass is always greener, by the time january rolls around a hr2 is better probably since I know it does so well in mud, i'll just have to find a good tire for the rear, maybe the dhf will hold up but maybe I need something else. For me the dhf/dhf has been the end of the line for awhile, i've been waiting to try it all year, now I would have no clue where to go after it. It does good but maybe something will roll faster and still corner good enough to my liking. Time will tell, for now the dhf/dhf looks like it could be the default option for most of the year riding though.

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,376
    The 2.5 aggressor should be out soon. Im excited about that.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    78
    Its official, on my second ride overall with the dhf/dhf and the first with this combo on another set of trails, I was faster up and down with the dhf on the rear than the aggressor. I set my best total ride time ever of 1 hr 40 min last week (100 minutes) with a dhf/aggressor combo and now set a 1 hr 37 min (97 minutes) time with the dhf rear, I lost a minute too having to move under a tree that fell across the trail and also lost some time to a stop for photos that I did not make before, so really I could have done 1 hr 35 minutes easily. That's a 3% difference in time as it stands and it could have maybe been 5% faster. A brand new aggressor would have evened the gap some, but I still felt quicker on the dhf. I was surprised as I felt like I climbed a bit quicker with the dhf than the aggressor rear. Downhill, especially through rough terrain, I plowed through quicker with the dhf. Disclaimer is that I also added a few psi of air to the fork and rear shock, but everything else including tire pressure was the same as my previous personal record ride.

    The first ride with the dhf/dhf was on some general trailbike trails with some decents, today was down a pretty rocky and twisty downhill trail, then a fireroad, then a twisty singletrack which was fairly smooth. That usually is about 30 minutes total, followed by the rest of the ride being several very steep climbs and a lot of twisty, undulatory singletrack (so not specifically dh or climbing).

    It still holds true that the aggressor has better climbing and braking traction especially on hardpack and not very lose conditions, I felt the dhf skidded quite a bit more when standing on the pedals uphill and also when laying on the brakes. But I felt more confident on the dhf and carried more speed, I did have some drifty cornering incidents that I didn't have before but I think its due to the extra speed I was carrying. That gap between the side and center knobs on the dhf also is a bit more sketchy than the aggressor I still think, but that could be because I am running narrower 23.4 mm internal width rims. So the aggressor tread does seem to work a bit better in some ways yet I still like the dhf more and did better with it. Also, the aggressor will probably have better longevity as the skidding with the dhf has seemed to already start to wear the center knobs slightly (after 2 rides!) but the aggressor took awhile before any wear at all was seen.

    Obviously this is all imo, you could argue those times are close enough that other factors potentially had an effect, including the other changes to my setup or maybe i'm just in better shape this week than last, but for now I like the dhf rear better.

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation: yeti575inCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,577
    Quote Originally Posted by agreenbike View Post
    Its official, on my second ride overall with the dhf/dhf and the first with this combo on another set of trails, I was faster up and down with the dhf on the rear than the aggressor. I set my best total ride time ever of 1 hr 40 min last week (100 minutes) with a dhf/aggressor combo and now set a 1 hr 37 min (97 minutes) time with the dhf rear, I lost a minute too having to move under a tree that fell across the trail and also lost some time to a stop for photos that I did not make before, so really I could have done 1 hr 35 minutes easily. That's a 3% difference in time as it stands and it could have maybe been 5% faster. A brand new aggressor would have evened the gap some, but I still felt quicker on the dhf. I was surprised as I felt like I climbed a bit quicker with the dhf than the aggressor rear. Downhill, especially through rough terrain, I plowed through quicker with the dhf. Disclaimer is that I also added a few psi of air to the fork and rear shock, but everything else including tire pressure was the same as my previous personal record ride.

    The first ride with the dhf/dhf was on some general trailbike trails with some decents, today was down a pretty rocky and twisty downhill trail, then a fireroad, then a twisty singletrack which was fairly smooth. That usually is about 30 minutes total, followed by the rest of the ride being several very steep climbs and a lot of twisty, undulatory singletrack (so not specifically dh or climbing).

    It still holds true that the aggressor has better climbing and braking traction especially on hardpack and not very lose conditions, I felt the dhf skidded quite a bit more when standing on the pedals uphill and also when laying on the brakes. But I felt more confident on the dhf and carried more speed, I did have some drifty cornering incidents that I didn't have before but I think its due to the extra speed I was carrying. That gap between the side and center knobs on the dhf also is a bit more sketchy than the aggressor I still think, but that could be because I am running narrower 23.4 mm internal width rims. So the aggressor tread does seem to work a bit better in some ways yet I still like the dhf more and did better with it. Also, the aggressor will probably have better longevity as the skidding with the dhf has seemed to already start to wear the center knobs slightly (after 2 rides!) but the aggressor took awhile before any wear at all was seen.

    Obviously this is all imo, you could argue those times are close enough that other factors potentially had an effect, including the other changes to my setup or maybe i'm just in better shape this week than last, but for now I like the dhf rear better.
    What size rear dhf? Maxterra? Be interesting to see how you would like the new 2.5WT aggressor when it comes out..

    Keep posting...thx

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by yeti575inCA View Post
    What size rear dhf? Maxterra? Be interesting to see how you would like the new 2.5WT aggressor when it comes out..

    Keep posting...thx

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    As in my first post, the rear is a 2.3 non-3c model (should be dual compound) tubeless ready exo model. I never mentioned before that I have a 29er though. The front that I had with both the aggressor and dhf is pretty much the same tire but 3c (so maxterra I think? I have to see). The aggressor was a 2.3 exo tr model, so pretty much the same casing.

    Anyways, still all imo, i'd need to use strava on a new version of each tire on the same bike to scientifically conclude i'm faster I guess, but so far I had the most fun and quickest times ever on dhf/ dhf. I took note of the time I left the car and when I got back each time, so the times I posted were the entire ride length. Before the quick aggressor time, I think I set 1 hr 45 min time on a new hr2/ardent combo, so the dhf/dhf with a whole ton of other changes to my bike means this was the quickest time for me ever. Although i've weighed less in the past I think I have more muscle now than ever, so perhaps I'm just getting that much more fit each week to keep setting personal records.

    edit: and I don't think I could ever fit a 2.5 on my rear as it is a modded xc/trailbike that's been turned more AM over time, I don't think i'd run a 2.5 on the front either due to my narrower rim width.

    Would be cool to see if others experienced the same as I did, I do think some might like the aggressor better due to the less sliding under braking and climbing for example.

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,376
    If you can use a dual compound both front and rear, it'll be perfect so u can move the older one to the back to about the back having more grip than the front.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    78
    If I could further clarify, I guess the point of my original post was that I was a big fan of the aggressor like so many are becoming,
    but I was pretty surprised to find that a dhf with the same size and options rolled about the same and with some benefits,
    and I was further surprised that this combo really isn't used much or talked about much anymore. Today I was surprised that I had a personal record for one of my local trails by quite a bit of time on just my first ride there with the new tire, when it usually takes time to adjust to the tire. I still think the conclusion in my first post holds true at the very least, that a new aggressor and new dhf with the same options are going to give you surprisingly similar times. In fact the dhf rear may be quite a bit quicker, but there are perhaps too many other factors for me to state that for sure.

    And for other record times, I started riding the route I did today back when I had a hr2/ardent combo, I got anywhere from 2 hours to 1:45 at the quickest. Going hr2/dhr2 for a few rides was about the same or slower since it was hard to get that dhr2 uphill with my gearing. DHF/dhr2 was similar with me averaging 1:45 to 1:50 I think. DHf/aggressor I think I maxed out at 1:43 before my ride last week, I had changed pedals bout 10 rides ago after old ones broke and also finally went 11 speed which made me way quicker on the climbs. So with further improvements I got about 1 hour 40 minutes for a quick time. Now with the same setup a week later but with the dhf rear, the time decreased a few minutes and could have had a few minutes shaved off that if there wasn't a downed tree and I didn't stop for pictures at one point.

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonlui View Post
    If you can use a dual compound both front and rear, it'll be perfect so u can move the older one to the back to about the back having more grip than the front.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    That's what i've heard, I'm used to using 3c fronts and already had it on there but maybe next time i'll try that.

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtrider76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,989
    DHF front and rear is still pretty common, I know a few friends that run it.
    I like to fart when I'm in front of you on a climb

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    78
    Third ride at a 3rd totally different place with DHF front and rear, pretty much the same findings as before, it is faster than having an aggressor in the back and the only downside to this combo still is that the DHF rear skids quite a bit under braking, especially in hardpack conditions. Up the paved road to the trailhead, I pretty much flew up the climb. Again, maybe its the extra 0.5 psi im running in the rear on the 2.3 dhf, which also looks a tiny bit bigger than the 2.3 aggressor, or maybe its just me, but whatever it is I climbed pretty fast. What used to be somewhat tiring with me slowly turning the aggressor and old 36t rear on my 1x10 was me turning the 37t on the new 11 speed at a decent rate, so instead of somewhat surging forward like before in some spots I kept a pretty quick speed and even jumped up the the next smallest cog (34t? I forget) on the road. At the trailhead, the hardpack climb with switchbacks was also pretty quick, though maybe not as noticeable as the road. Getting to the real trails (relatively flat hardpack with plenty of rocks, roots, and sharp corners to keep things interesting), I also rode quickly again, pedaling pretty quick and also enjoying the rear dhf's amazing cornering. Hitting the insanely rocky areas of the trail, the dhf plowed through things nicely. Despite it being a hot day, I did not take a water break at my first usual stopping point, I took only a quick breather and kept riding, so I felt less tired than normal at certain parts of the ride. Hitting a flow trail section, the dhf helped me take corners more aggressively than before. There were some areas of the trails with loose dust and others that were forested with loose debris on them, the dhf definitely cut through these loose conditions nicely.

    Again, on the more hardpacked DH sections, the rear dhf did seem to skid quite a bit when you hit the brakes, I can see why the dhr2 is so popular for very steep downhills as it brakes great. But for me, the DHF beats other maxxis treads I have tried at everything else, so i'm very happy with the combo.

    I will have to see how it handles the wet, and maybe its all up to the rider (me), but I am riding quicker and more boldly than ever before with this combo. I wish I recorded times before and after at this riding area like the other area, but I never did, still I just feel fast.
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtrider76 View Post
    DHF front and rear is still pretty common, I know a few friends that run it.
    That's good at least, I never see them where I ride except for on ibis demo bikes like the hd3 or hd4. I'm definitely getting along well with this combo!

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: He1enKe1ler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    55
    I recently put 2.3 DHF front and 2.3 Aggressor rear. These replaced the stock Nobby Nic 2.35 front 2.25 rear that came on the bike.

    Maybe it was in my head but I gripped better through turns, climbed better (never spun out over roots, etc.) and everything felt awesome!

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,362
    Yah, that wouldn't be in your head cause those tires are on different planets as far as traction goes.

  24. #224
    change is good
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    Yah, that wouldn't be in your head cause those tires are on different planets as far as traction goes.
    True dat.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  25. #225
    Trail Gnome
    Reputation: griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post
    Thanks for the responses, I love a DHF x 2, it can indeed seem magical at times, but with tires especially, the grass is always greener when new alternatives appear. Hearing from riders who have experience on both is very helpful
    Iíve tried both, and many others...I donít like rear tires that have ramped center knobs, no traction when climbing out of the saddle. Minion dhf up front, and an aggressor in the rear is my go to set up for most conditions. The Aggressor isnít good in the wet/mud...knobs are to close together, the tread packs up. Everyone has their own preference...

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    807
    Go to a 3C in the back and braking will get better.. I am sure you realize this though.

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    78
    Destroyed my record-destroying time again this week, got 1 hour 30- 1 hour 31 minutes on the same loop now with another ride on the dhf/dhf. That's 9-10 minutes shaved off of my best dhf/ aggressor time. Last time was 1 hr 37 minutes with dhf/dhf. That's what, a 9% improvement at least (over the aggressor)? I really think for that big of a jump, most of it is improvements in the rider (me) and fitness, but the dhf/dhf combo just lets me be so aggressive in the corners while still pedaling fast everywhere else. No tree down this time and no stopping for photos, so that helped the time, but still a few stops. I was pretty dang tired before the ride and not exactly "feeling it," but once I got on I roared up the first hill and absolutely ripped down. My new intensity though has caused some brand new and quite significant losses of paint near my bb though as I now can blow through some very rocky stuff with confidence.

    And still, aggressor had better braking and climbing traction, but the dhf just gives so much confidence. Definitely my favorite combo yet, need to try a semi-slick tire next dry season but the dhf/dhf rocks for now! I think the rain is going to arrive again very soon, so I likely won't be able to smash any more records from now on, but we shall see...

    Quote Originally Posted by agreenbike View Post
    Its official, on my second ride overall with the dhf/dhf and the first with this combo on another set of trails, I was faster up and down with the dhf on the rear than the aggressor. I set my best total ride time ever of 1 hr 40 min last week (100 minutes) with a dhf/aggressor combo and now set a 1 hr 37 min (97 minutes) time with the dhf rear, I lost a minute too having to move under a tree that fell across the trail and also lost some time to a stop for photos that I did not make before, so really I could have done 1 hr 35 minutes easily. That's a 3% difference in time as it stands and it could have maybe been 5% faster. A brand new aggressor would have evened the gap some, but I still felt quicker on the dhf. I was surprised as I felt like I climbed a bit quicker with the dhf than the aggressor rear. Downhill, especially through rough terrain, I plowed through quicker with the dhf. Disclaimer is that I also added a few psi of air to the fork and rear shock, but everything else including tire pressure was the same as my previous personal record ride.

    The first ride with the dhf/dhf was on some general trailbike trails with some decents, today was down a pretty rocky and twisty downhill trail, then a fireroad, then a twisty singletrack which was fairly smooth. That usually is about 30 minutes total, followed by the rest of the ride being several very steep climbs and a lot of twisty, undulatory singletrack (so not specifically dh or climbing).

    It still holds true that the aggressor has better climbing and braking traction especially on hardpack and not very lose conditions, I felt the dhf skidded quite a bit more when standing on the pedals uphill and also when laying on the brakes. But I felt more confident on the dhf and carried more speed, I did have some drifty cornering incidents that I didn't have before but I think its due to the extra speed I was carrying. That gap between the side and center knobs on the dhf also is a bit more sketchy than the aggressor I still think, but that could be because I am running narrower 23.4 mm internal width rims. So the aggressor tread does seem to work a bit better in some ways yet I still like the dhf more and did better with it. Also, the aggressor will probably have better longevity as the skidding with the dhf has seemed to already start to wear the center knobs slightly (after 2 rides!) but the aggressor took awhile before any wear at all was seen.

    Obviously this is all imo, you could argue those times are close enough that other factors potentially had an effect, including the other changes to my setup or maybe i'm just in better shape this week than last, but for now I like the dhf rear better.

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation: the_joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonlui View Post
    The 2.5 aggressor should be out soon. Im excited about that.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    Anybody know how this comoares to the 2.5WT DHF in size?
    2008 BMC Fourstroke 19-559 ISO (RIP in peace)
    2017 BMC Speedfox 25-622 ISO
    2017 Salsa Timberjack 40-584 ISO

  29. #229
    Uly
    Uly is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by the_joe View Post
    Anybody know how this comoares to the 2.5WT DHF in size?
    Some info here:
    http://forums.mtbr.com/wheels-tires/...t-1049080.html

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation: the_joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Uly View Post
    Thank you my friend
    2008 BMC Fourstroke 19-559 ISO (RIP in peace)
    2017 BMC Speedfox 25-622 ISO
    2017 Salsa Timberjack 40-584 ISO

  31. #231
    endorphin addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    240
    Anybody else think the Aggressor is squirmy on hardpack? Running the 2.5 WT on back Hitting hardpack berms not liking the squirminess at all.

  32. #232
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by the_joe View Post
    Anybody know how this comoares to the 2.5WT DHF in size?
    Uses the same casings and once stretched has the same height +-1mm
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Arebee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    646
    I ran a DHR II EXO Dual Compound 2.3" 29er for the last year and recently blew out the sidewall. The tire still held air, but was stretched and had a significant wobble to it.

    My LBS had a replacement DHR II in stock but it was the 3C Maxx Terra Double Down Casing. I'm expecting the DD to wear a little faster than the Dual Compound, but how do you think the sidewalls will hold up to New England's rocky terrain compared to the EXO?
    AreBee

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PuddleDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,193
    Hi Arebee,

    I assume you're asking if the 3C will wear faster than the dual compound. Yet it will AND it will have higher rolling resistance. Many people hear run a dual compound rear to avoid this issue.

    I suggest you ask the questions about the casing in the New England sub-forum.



    Quote Originally Posted by Arebee View Post
    I ran a DHR II EXO Dual Compound 2.3" 29er for the last year and recently blew out the sidewall. The tire still held air, but was stretched and had a significant wobble to it.


    My LBS had a replacement DHR II in stock but it was the 3C Maxx Terra Double Down Casing. I'm expecting the DD to wear a little faster than the Dual Compound, but how do you think the sidewalls will hold up to New England's rocky terrain compared to the EXO?

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Arebee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by PuddleDuck View Post
    Hi Arebee,

    I assume you're asking if the 3C will wear faster than the dual compound. Yet it will AND it will have higher rolling resistance. Many people hear run a dual compound rear to avoid this issue.

    I suggest you ask the questions about the casing in the New England sub-forum.
    No, I understand that it will wear faster, but I'm concerned about sidewall protection against cuts. I had my first ride on it yesterday. I didn't think I would feel the higher rolling resistance, but I really did notice a difference. Kind of a humid greasy day, so I couldn't get a good gauge on the difference in grip on the roots and rocks.
    AreBee

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by BushPilot View Post
    Anybody else think the Aggressor is squirmy on hardpack? Running the 2.5 WT on back Hitting hardpack berms not liking the squirminess at all.
    Didn't notice this at all for me. Only negative I have is this tire likes to pick up small rocks and either toss them into my linkage or frame. Some bad enough that it wore through 3m tape already.

  37. #237
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Arebee View Post
    I ran a DHR II EXO Dual Compound 2.3" 29er for the last year and recently blew out the sidewall. The tire still held air, but was stretched and had a significant wobble to it.

    My LBS had a replacement DHR II in stock but it was the 3C Maxx Terra Double Down Casing. I'm expecting the DD to wear a little faster than the Dual Compound, but how do you think the sidewalls will hold up to New England's rocky terrain compared to the EXO?
    the double down casing is quite a bit tougher than the EXO so if you didnt kill the EXO super fast with cuts and holes then the DD will be fine since it is stronger.

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Arebee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post
    the double down casing is quite a bit tougher than the EXO so if you didnt kill the EXO super fast with cuts and holes then the DD will be fine since it is stronger.
    That's great to hear! The EXO survived nearly two years so I feel a big sense of relief.

    Thanks!
    AreBee

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    332
    Can anyone show me or tell me if the aggressor 2.5 is taller or wider then the 2.4wt DHR2 in 29er? Thanks in advance
    Transition Scout Carbon

  40. #240
    n00b
    Reputation: Krigloch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by KenDobson View Post
    Can anyone show me or tell me if the aggressor 2.5 is taller or wider then the 2.4wt DHR2 in 29er? Thanks in advance
    Dude, came here to ask that same question. Nice!
    Wanting to get a DD Aggressor to have if I ever travel to a super rocky area.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
    instagram@krigloch

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    155
    Okay, I took some measurements, I have on front the DHR2 2.4" WT and Aggressor 2.5" WT on back, both with EXO casing and on Arch mk3 rims.

    - DHR2, tire body is 58mm wide, tread(widest knobs) is 60mm wide, and tire height 73mm from inside of the rim to outside of the tread.
    - Aggressor, Tire body is 60mm wide, tread is 62mm wide, and tire height 74mm from inside of the rim to outside of the tread.

    So the 2.5" Aggressor seems to be slightly bigger than 2.4" DHR2, but not too much. Both tires have been installed about a month ago, so both well "burned in", but not yet worn out. Visual impression matches the measured values... This is a great combo of tires for good variety of terrain and conditions, only thing I haven't tried with this combo so far is proper mud and slimy roots, I expect the combo to be at least decent on those too...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Maxxis Aggressor
    By OriginalDonk in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-31-2016, 01:03 PM
  2. Enve M70 with Maxxis Aggressor?
    By fitnessgeek in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-27-2016, 06:34 AM
  3. Maxxis aggressor
    By socalrider77 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-11-2016, 12:13 AM
  4. Best place to buy Maxxis High Roller II and Maxxis Ardent tires
    By amaizenblue402 in forum Where are the Best Deals?
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-06-2016, 02:49 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-05-2013, 06:57 PM

Members who have read this thread: 348

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

© Copyright 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.