Results 1 to 33 of 33
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    735

    For Rear: 2.6 DHF vs 2.5 Aggressor vs. 2.6 Rekon

    So, I'm running 2.6 DHF front and back and really have nothing to complain about other than on long pedal days 3hr+ 3000ft+ it starts to feel a bit sluggish.

    Looking to drop some weight and rolling resistance - without sacrificing much grip. I don't ride super rocky sharp terrian often, maybe 1 in 10 rides, but I don't plan to swap tires/wheels back and forth either.

    Based on reviews Aggressor sounds like a good choice, but it's ONLY 50g savings on the DHF (915g vs. 965g). The Rekons I've seen quite of few people run in my area - but not sure how it holds up the rocky and loose stuff. At 805g it's a good savings.

    I ride in NorCal. Thoughts?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,290
    The sluggishness isn't necessarily weight, it's probably more about rolling resistance. I've had a 2.5 Tough/Fast WTB Breakout tire (almost 1100g) that rolled significantly faster than the 2.3 Aggressor Exo it replaced (~925g).

    I'd focus less on weight and more on what type of tire works best in your environment and what you can get away with. The 2.5 Aggressor will have less rolling resistance than the DHF, and the Rekon will have less than both with less grip as well. There are lots of other choices.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Porch View Post
    The sluggishness isn't necessarily weight, it's probably more about rolling resistance. I've had a 2.5 Tough/Fast WTB Breakout tire (almost 1100g) that rolled significantly faster than the 2.3 Aggressor Exo it replaced (~925g).

    I'd focus less on weight and more on what type of tire works best in your environment and what you can get away with. The 2.5 Aggressor will have less rolling resistance than the DHF, and the Rekon will have less than both with less grip as well. There are lots of other choices.
    So you did not feel extra 200g difference in weight? My understanding is rolling resistance comes more into play on flats and downs, while absolute weight more on pedal ups.

    My goal is not necessarily to go faster but to remove weight and rolling resistance so I can ride for longer with more elevation.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,290
    I actually set some PR's on the uphills with that tire combination. The weight certainly wasn't a non-issue, but for me weight is better than rolling resistance when considering a new tire. I do a lot of technical climbing too.

    Either way i'm not saying you should look for a +200g tire, just that I wouldn't worry about +/-50g if it means a faster-rolling tire.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    205
    2.5 Aggressor is probably a good bet for a quicker rolling, tough tire. The Rekon is built with a thinner casing, so it wonít hold up as well in rocks as a tougher tire like DHF or Aggressor. Iíd say stick with a brand that you know works well. Iíve had some tires that didnít work as well tubeless with my rims, and that was another hassle.

  6. #6
    I am Walt
    Reputation: waltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,382
    I ran the Rekon 2.6 in back for a while on my SS, and it was too heavy and draggy. Love it in the front, though.
    Ride more; post less...

  7. #7
    always licking the glass
    Reputation: stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,545
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    So you did not feel extra 200g difference in weight? My understanding is rolling resistance comes more into play on flats and downs, while absolute weight more on pedal ups.

    My goal is not necessarily to go faster but to remove weight and rolling resistance so I can ride for longer with more elevation.
    It was noticeable to me, which is why I havenít gone to a DD casing after trying the heavy casing breakout.

    I recently switched from an exo dhf 2.5 wt in the back to an exo aggressor 2.5 wt. Iím really liking it. The only time it felt slow today is when I felt slow.

    It does take a while to find the right psi for the aggressor after coming off a dhf in the rear. But itís definitely worth it.

    I havenít tried the rekon but a buddy of mine loves it.
    Guerrilla Gravity BAMF, Colorado Front Range
    Hadley hubs for sale

  8. #8
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    So, I'm running 2.6 DHF front and back and really have nothing to complain about other than on long pedal days 3hr+ 3000ft+ it starts to feel a bit sluggish.

    Looking to drop some weight and rolling resistance - without sacrificing much grip. I don't ride super rocky sharp terrian often, maybe 1 in 10 rides, but I don't plan to swap tires/wheels back and forth either.

    Based on reviews Aggressor sounds like a good choice, but it's ONLY 50g savings on the DHF (915g vs. 965g). The Rekons I've seen quite of few people run in my area - but not sure how it holds up the rocky and loose stuff. At 805g it's a good savings.

    I ride in NorCal. Thoughts?
    Running a DHF 2.6 up front also. In smaller width always ran the DHF/dhr2, but when I moved to the 2.6 the dhr2 was not out at that time. Also as the 2.6 gives so much traction I didn't feel the need to run a Minion out back. So I've been running a 2.6 Forkaster out back. Rolls well, and aside from lacking in high speed straight line braking it is a very good trie. I run it in the dual compound out back.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    420

    For Rear: 2.6 DHF vs 2.5 Aggressor vs. 2.6 Rekon

    I run DHF 2.6 up front and 2.6 rekon in rear, Iíve thought about a dhr our back but prob be overkill for my terrain, I ride with several guys that run rekon f/r. Overall the rekon does pretty well, on dirt is has a predictable break away. Iíve found if itís not gripping as well as it should itís typically my technique slipping more so than the tire.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    237
    In the last 9 months I've run Recon 2.6, DHF 2.6 and Aggressor 2.5 on the rear. Aggressor on a 29mm internal rim others on a 35mm internal rim.
    The Recon worked well as long as there is no mud, but to get the traction I wanted
    I had to run them at 20psi. Only downside is pinch flats. I ride rocky terrain and fast downs or launching into rocky trails will ruin the tire.
    DHf 2.6 only one pinch flat and it resealed vs ruined tire w Recons also running 20 psi rear. Feels slower on hardpack corners great very good traction I could run this and not look back.
    Aggressor 2.5 chose it to mate up w a DFH 2.5 on a new set of wheels. Running at 25 psi rear. Pedals well my guess is between the Recon n the DHF. Corners very well good traction climbing, little better braking than the others. So far, 20 or so rides it's been very durable..
    To be honest I'm happy with either the DHF 2.6 front n rear or the Dhf 2.5 f w Aggressor 2.5 r. Would love to have the faster pedaling Recon but only if I rode less rocky terrain.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Porch View Post
    I actually set some PR's on the uphills with that tire combination. The weight certainly wasn't a non-issue, but for me weight is better than rolling resistance when considering a new tire. I do a lot of technical climbing too.

    Either way i'm not saying you should look for a +200g tire, just that I wouldn't worry about +/-50g if it means a faster-rolling tire.
    Which combo did you get the PR's on...exo aggressor 2.5 wt on back?
    I agree with the weight Vs rolling resistance comment. Last summer I set 6 PR's on climbs of around 1000 feet and 45 minute duration as parts of longer rides on 2.6" rear Vs. 2.1 or 2.25 on lighter rims. These were climbs I've been tracking for years. Last week, I cleaned a climb in Moab on a 2.6 rear that I'd never cleaned before (35 id rims). I'm not going back to narrower tires.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,342
    Quote Originally Posted by HoJo View Post
    In the last 9 months I've run Recon 2.6, DHF 2.6 and Aggressor 2.5 on the rear. Aggressor on a 29mm internal rim others on a 35mm internal rim.
    The Recon worked well as long as there is no mud, but to get the traction I wanted
    I had to run them at 20psi. Only downside is pinch flats..
    You're not running tubes are you? Do you mean you're burping them or getting rim strikes?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    237
    Yes running tubeless but the tire gets pinched between rock n rim. Usually a hole near the bead and one between the knobs. The hole near the bead often causes the tire to no longer work tubeless

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by stripes View Post
    It was noticeable to me, which is why I havenít gone to a DD casing after trying the heavy casing breakout.

    I recently switched from an exo dhf 2.5 wt in the back to an exo aggressor 2.5 wt. Iím really liking it. The only time it felt slow today is when I felt slow.

    It does take a while to find the right psi for the aggressor after coming off a dhf in the rear. But itís definitely worth it.

    I havenít tried the rekon but a buddy of mine loves it.
    Sounds like - this thread is validating what I thought. Aggressor is the best bet for overall rolling, grip, and durability. What PSI difference are running between the DHF and Aggressor?

    Rekon is fine if I'm willing to roll the dice on the rocky rides. Note, that I'm about ~155# max geared up. So maybe the Rekon is not that bad of a risk. I know the people that haven't had much luck with it are Clydes or at least 200#+.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by MSU Alum View Post
    Which combo did you get the PR's on...exo aggressor 2.5 wt on back?
    I agree with the weight Vs rolling resistance comment. Last summer I set 6 PR's on climbs of around 1000 feet and 45 minute duration as parts of longer rides on 2.6" rear Vs. 2.1 or 2.25 on lighter rims. These were climbs I've been tracking for years. Last week, I cleaned a climb in Moab on a 2.6 rear that I'd never cleaned before (35 id rims). I'm not going back to narrower tires.
    In going from an Aggressor 2.3 to a Breakout 2.5 I set several uphill PR's on the Breakouts, even though they are ~175g heavier. I can't comment on the Aggressor 2.5 but the 2.3 is not a fast rolling tire.

    Now I run a Slaughter on the rear (2.6 on one bike, 2.3 on the other) and I am breaking those PR's. It's my favorite rear tire for my local dry/loose-over-hard trails.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    735
    Slaughter does look like an interested tread, between an Aggressor and a Semi-Slick. I'm sure it does roll fast, but I'm not a crazy leaner so I think I'll go with something with a bit more tread.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    420
    Iím 220+ on rekon rear, Iím in mostly roots and dirt though, Iím riding bentonville at the end of the month, so we will see. Iíll probably bump pressure up a bit, I run 20/21 on 30mm internal rims


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    Slaughter does look like an interested tread, between an Aggressor and a Semi-Slick. I'm sure it does roll fast, but I'm not a crazy leaner so I think I'll go with something with a bit more tread.
    It's not for every condition which is why I didn't recommend it. Perfect for my trails though! Tell us more about your local trails or your area, or check with other local riders or shops to see what they recommend.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by HoJo View Post
    Yes running tubeless but the tire gets pinched between rock n rim. Usually a hole near the bead and one between the knobs. The hole near the bead often causes the tire to no longer work tubeless
    exact same experience with 2.8 REKON on my rear. TONS of pinch holes near the bead line. For anything other than flowy smooth trails I would look for a tougher casing. If only there was an AGGRESSOR in 2.8

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    735
    Throwing one more option out there before I pull the trigger on the Aggressor. Anybody know how it compares to the Bontrager XR4 team?

    Similar knob pattern, but XR4 center knobs seemed to be spaced farther and ramped. Also looks to be about 50g lighter than Aggressor (or about 100g light than my current DHF out back).

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beer_coffee_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    885
    I'd get the Aggressor. It pairs really well with the 2.5 DHF. In the dry loose conditions I ride, it is performing really well. I have no lack confidence with that set up. The Aggressor rolls great, climbs great and grips/brakes well. The only other rear tire I will run is a DHR II for super loose conditions.

    The XR4 transition knobs are almost touching the side knobs. It doesn't seem like it is a well thought out design. The tighter spacing of the Aggressor center tread provides better rolling resistance, the knobs are taller allowing for more traction and it has a cleaner channel to the side knobs to bite harder while leaning.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by smoothmoose View Post
    So you did not feel extra 200g difference in weight? My understanding is rolling resistance comes more into play on flats and downs, while absolute weight more on pedal ups.

    My goal is not necessarily to go faster but to remove weight and rolling resistance so I can ride for longer with more elevation.
    Accelerating a heavy tire takes a little more effort but keeping it going isn't much different. But you'll always feel a draggier tire, accelerating and just pedaling along.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    420
    Rode my rear rekon at bentonville back 40, flatted x2, ordered the aggressor to see whatís up


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,118
    Try the WTB Breakout. About the same size as a 2.6 Maxxis, rolls really well and corners like a boss.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,069
    Mass is generally the largest contributor to rolling resistance. The more mass that there is to deform the more potential for hysteresis.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,062
    Couple of thoughts based on my experience:

    Used to run DHF 2.5 3c exo max terra front, DHR2 2.4 exo DC rear. Great overall combo.

    Killed the DHR running too low pressures in rocky terrain. Bought the than just our 2.6 DHF in 3c, exo, max terra for front and moved the DHF 2.5 to the rear. Good combo really but overall more drag/rolling resistance. Grip for days tho on both ends. Im not lycra devil tho so having the lightest/fastest combo is waaaaay down my list of priority.

    Finally wore out the DHF 2.5 rear and replaced it w the new Aggressor 2.5. exo, DC. Liking this as a rear - a LOT. less rolling resistance than DHF by a good bit, but good traction up and down when braking in the loose. Seems very similar size/volume to the 2.5 but rides much stiffer/harder at same air pressures. I suspect the casing is simply a stiffer casing/sidewall.

    When i retire the Aggressor i have a WTB breakout tough/fast (got it for $22 at Sierra trading post) waiting in the wings - know guys who ride and love this tire for its rolling speed and durability.

    Ultimately - will likely try a DHR again - 2.4. And once I ride out my DHF front - going back to a 2.5...

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by kamper11 View Post
    And once I ride out my DHF front - going back to a 2.5...
    Why? You don't like the 2.6?

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1
    One of the things that is rarely considered but is a very important tire specification is thread count. All maxxis tires have a default 60tpi casing. Rekons, dhf 2.6, Forecaster and Ardent Race all come in a 120tpi casing option which greatly decreases rolling resistance without a weight penalty. The price is higher but it is worth every penny. Keep in mind that double down casings are not what I am talking about. They are 120 2ply as in 2 layers of 60tpi fabric. The real deal 120tpi casing is twice as many thinner diameter threads in the same amount of area that would normally have only 60 thicker and there fore lest pliable threads. This is why people are experiencing 2.6 tires that are faster than 2.3's.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    59
    The 120 TPI looks to be about 200 grams heavier for all sizes on the aggressor, so the question is does it roll that much faster to make the weight penalty worth it?
    I'm on the same debate, but the situation is that I'm sizing up from 2.2 to get more height and cushion on my fuel ex.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bob-o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by wvucyclist View Post
    The 120 TPI looks to be about 200 grams heavier for all sizes on the aggressor, so the question is does it roll that much faster to make the weight penalty worth it?
    single ply 120 tpi should be lighter than single 60 tpi. Are you looking at Double Down which is two layers of 120 (dual ply)?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by bob-o View Post
    single ply 120 tpi should be lighter than single 60 tpi. Are you looking at Double Down which is two layers of 120 (dual ply)?
    Now that I look at the specs, yes, it's the double down, but that's the only 120 tpi casing available for the 29x2.5 aggressor tire, unless I'm looking in the wrong place.
    https://www.maxxis.com/catalog/tire-506-140-aggressor

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by wvucyclist View Post
    Now that I look at the specs, yes, it's the double down, but that's the only 120 tpi casing available for the 29x2.5 aggressor tire, unless I'm looking in the wrong place.
    https://www.maxxis.com/catalog/tire-506-140-aggressor
    Right, it either comes in the single 60 TPI or the DD casing (2x120TPI). It's an enduro tire and the single ply 120 TPI is generally for XC tires.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    735
    OP here. Aggressor rolling resistance is good - but it is a decently heavy tire even in EXO single ply. Given how popular the Aggressor is, I'm a bit surprised Maxxis doesn't offer it in more casing and compounds (no 3C) options.

    Aggressor is a good all-around rear tire - especially when conditions get blown out. But I'm swapping my DHF/Aggressor combo to Rekon/XR2 combo next week as we have tackier conditions here in Norcal during the Winter and Spring. Will see how the light/rollier combo plays out in terms of traction.

Similar Threads

  1. Maxxis Rekon vs DHF ?
    By rickcin in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-28-2018, 09:42 AM
  2. 2.8 Minion DHF and Rekon 2.8 x27.5 Review
    By Wasatch Warrior in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2018, 04:54 PM
  3. PNW 2.8 Rekon DHF Combo?
    By Travis Bickle in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-20-2018, 02:59 PM
  4. Plus tyre first timer - DHF/HR2/Rekon advice please
    By hughjayteens in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-24-2017, 04:28 AM
  5. HD3 - Minion DHF+ & Rekon+ Tires
    By NorthSideOf50 in forum Ibis
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-04-2017, 12:31 PM

Members who have read this thread: 236

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.