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?
Then why not run 2 tires of equal size to increase the amount of surface area?AusRottenVirus said:More surface area= more traction
Tattooo said: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?
LOL. Tattooo, you have such a way with words..... and I am still looking forward to meeting/riding with youTattooo said: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?
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:Because you want the rear tire to slide first. Having a bigger F tire gives it more surface area so it won't slide out as fast as the smaller R tire.
For the most part, they do not.Laaz said:So why dont pros ride like that....as i saw..they ride same tires f and r!
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: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.
Why wasn't I notified on this?iridebikes said: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!
Yep, I agree with this.Transcend said:For the most part, they do not.
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.
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.Why wasn't I notified on this? ... Now I run Gazzi 3.0 on the Demo that weighs 53 lbs.