Ok for years now I have known that running a larger volume tire in the front aids in turning but what I want to know is how? How exactly does a larger tire in the front help?
2.7 in the front w/ a 2.5 in the rear what gives?
- Thread starter wood-dog
- Start date
More surface area= more traction.? It just works, run it.
Then why not run 2 tires of equal size to increase the amount of surface area?AusRottenVirus said:
How does it benefit the rider to run 2 different size tires having a larger one up front?
Wood, it just looks right.
Mostly I do it to keep things light in the rear while giving the front the all important ability to crush squirrles and soda cans.
Speaking of soda cans, have you ever seen the video of the lady with the massive floppy rack who can crush cans with her ta-ta's?
Mostly I do it to keep things light in the rear while giving the front the all important ability to crush squirrles and soda cans.
Speaking of soda cans, have you ever seen the video of the lady with the massive floppy rack who can crush cans with her ta-ta's?
Tattooo said:
that vid is sweet! she slams her rack down and crushes em flat!
LOL. Tattooo, you have such a way with words..... and I am still looking forward to meeting/riding with youTattooo said:
Dont forget the wonderfull factor of clearance. Alot of bikes can only hndle a 2.5 in the rear i see alot of people with a 2.7 up front whos bikes only fit a 2.35 rear.Bicyclist said:
pretty much it's been said... but so many people are realizing that lighter is better, faster, and just pretty much kick ass. I run dual 2.5's and it works out just fine for me. I could see that if you were a bigger rider you might want to go with a little bit larger tire, but honestly, with the technology going into tire tread and the rubber itself, you don't really need to run huge tires anymore. Why do you think the Nokian 3.0's aren't popular anymore? If more rubber ment more traction, which ment better turning, then we'd all be running 3.0's. But the riding has progressed past the need for anything bigger than 2.7. I really see no point in running a 2.7" tire, but then again, I'm a lighter rider, and don't need it. 2.5 is more than enough for me!
Run like Peaty Duel 2.35 Semi slicks!!! Did good for him
I used to run the 3.0 Nokian, and it hooked up like Magic Johnson even after he got AIDS. However, like me, it was just a little too heavy up front, hard to get the front end up. Now I can still get my front end up, I just have to be very happy to see it...
So why dont pros ride like that....as i saw..they ride same tires f and r!
For the most part, they do not.Laaz said:
A lot of pros run larger tires front and back. Kovarik used to run 2.7s front and rear on many courses simply to protect his rims.
If they run anything, it is smaller front and rear (2.35 or 2.5). They have more control over their bike then the rest of us, they don't need the extra "help" this can provide and smaller tires spin faster.
Well, that is what i ment....they ride 2.5 f and 2.5 r....or even 2.35as you said....
Yeah I'm with Transcend here,2.7s better for confidence,smaller is faster,fatter is more fun and better for us average riders.If your racing and can handle your bike well then go 2.5s.I run 2.5s front and rear(old fronts on rear) and I still think 2.7 is better for ruggid rough big type tracks,but just a bit harder to throw about.
I'm yet to see anyone runnig a 2.35 in the rear here in OZ that alot of you guys seem to be running.Maybee you all have it to good with smooth tracks.
I'm yet to see anyone runnig a 2.35 in the rear here in OZ that alot of you guys seem to be running.Maybee you all have it to good with smooth tracks.
I really don't know too many people here who run 2.35s for regular DH riding. Seems like 2.5 is the most common choice. I love big tires. I usually run a 2.7 or 2.8 front and a 2.5 rear. Running some big tires with good rubber and low pressure can really make a bike come alive when it gets rough.no skid marks said:
I decided to run 2.7's for the winter time to help out with all the wet roots and rocks on the North shore and it was totally unnecessary. It gives me only marginally better traction and makes the bike ride/handle so much slower. Once winter is over I plan on going back to 2.5's and never throwing a larger tire on my bike again.
I am running 2.5's all around, and it made a huge leap from when I was running a 3.0 up front and a 2.7 in the rear. I loved how the Nokian/Michline combo hooked up, but the weight was just too much, and I am a big guy. I am thinking for most stuff a 2.4 in the rear would be optimal, but I have yet to find a 2.4 I like.
Why wasn't I notified on this?iridebikes said:
http://www.pinkbike.com/phototemps/mtemppbpic1794.jpg
Now I run Gazzi 3.0 on the Demo that weighs 53 lbs. And the front is a 26 x 3.0 (where have you seen that?) I can maneuver this bike as well as my hardtail with 2.35 f/r. Maybe it is just me? The only reason I have them is for my drop all bike. I will admit that they are HEAVY but to each their own...
Yep, I agree with this.Transcend said:
All of us guys look to the Pro bikes to help us with our setup, but sometimes that does more harm than good. A cat like Sam Hill that rolls as smooth as glass is going to be able to get away with a smaller tire setup than my "rides like a sandpaper condom" style.
Just like last year at the September Diablo race, on a tight course, I threw on the front a Michelin 2.8 and was able to ride much faster.
Haha, that's crazy! 53 pounds!?!? I guess it all depends on the rider, their style and their skill I guess. My bike this year is hopefully going to be around 39 pounds, maybe closer to 40, but the frame is 14 pounds. I know that being only 150 pounds myself makes it kind of tough having a bike that weighs much more. my bike was 43 last year and I didn't have really any problems with it, but if it was much over 45, the bike would be riding me.
All I know, is that tire size is pretty much all relative. The course and the rider, and the riding style all make a huge difference in tire size choice. I run dual 2.0 xc tires on my hardtail and I take it out to my local 'freeride park' and can rip faster and corner harder than most people out there on their dh bikes. So I guess it's just all skill, riding technique and the terrain that makes the biggest difference.
I've tried and tried to run 2.7 sized tires and I just hate everytime I do. For me they tend to wash too much and float over the rocks and crevices. I like for my tires to find the crevices and little berms and seat into them. I notice the straightline harshness of smaller volume tires, but I love the way they corner.
2.5 or 2.7 up front of course depends a lot on what company you run as tire size differes greatly. Correct tire size also differes depending on where you ride. There is a big difference between smooth A-line and a rock littered Diablo track.
2.5 front 2.35 rear..
I've tried 2.5 f 2.5 r and 2.7 f 2.5 r . Maxxis and Kenda are the only tires i've rode and the Kenda's are a true 2.5 and Maxxis 2.5 are really 2.35. I like 2.5 f and r so i'm running duel 2.7 minions this season.
hmmm i feel spedcial considering I'm running (tubeless) michelin 2.8 in the front and michelin 2.25 in the rear:looney:
ya dude i run a surley 3.5 on the front of my iron horse it corners great it ads like 1 pound though so i think ill put a larsen on there or sumthin or mabey put my old minion dhf on the front and another dhf on the rear ya know just to lose some weight