I am going to be swapping out my tires on my Mt Bike , and one tire is a 2,1 the other a 2.35
so which one should I put on the front , which one on the back ?
so which one should I put on the front , which one on the back ?
Mis matched Tire sizes
- Thread starter splat
- Start date
seriously?
larger tire in front.
larger tire in front.
bigger front for cornering, smaller back for low rolling resistance.
you should get a 29'er.
Come on Splat, you should know this already.
I would sell the 2.1 and get a new tire.
edit -- it would really come down to which tires they are. There are some tires I would never but on the front.
edit -- it would really come down to which tires they are. There are some tires I would never but on the front.
Last edited:
Bigger in back for traction on the premise that you're going to be climbing, unlike the shuttle people.
What do you mean you people?
I run a 2.7 front and 2.5 rear. But you lack that as an option. I think my Stinky came with matched tires stock (in 2000 with 2.5's?), but every bike I've built have been mismatched.
You still ride your mountain bike other than commuting?
You still ride your mountain bike other than commuting?
excuse me ?
the commuting Mt bike has 1.9's on front and back. and what got me thinking is I normally do run the large on the front , however , a couple weeks back with my FSR I switched out the rear from a 2.6 to a 2.35 , now I'm about to swap out the front from a 2.6 and the tire I have is a 2.1 , so I figured I put it out to the monkey population and the tires are Nevagals
He's right.
A wide tire in the rear will only make climbing harder because there is more surface area contact and more rotational weight. There's a reason road tires are so skinny.
If rear traction is an issue, then it might be time to replace the worn tire.
Road tires are skinny because traction isn't a problem.
Are you saying that a 2.1 grips as well as a 2.3 and the only reason it might not is because the 2.1 is worn?
Conventional wisdom is bigger front, smaller rear BUT there are valid reasons to put a bigger tire on the rear, climbing traction being one of them and another one being the ability to lower the tire pressure on the rear and get a little more cushion and traction out of a hardtail.
Stuff the smaller one with pine cones to make it as big as the larger one....then there's no debate.
Bigger in front, smaller in back. Run slightly lower PSI in the front. I have that set up on both my dh and trail bike with no issues whatsoever, besides rider error and/or sloppiness. In fact, I think it works great on my trail bike. The front pulls through (almost) everything and the back (almost always) follows. In traction situations, if your front tire goes, your back tire is sure to follow. Following suit, I always run the softer durometer tire in the front and a harder in the back (if they differ) - better front traction.
Last edited:
Actually with road bikes some people will put a wider tire on the rear and narrower up front.
Here is my opinion, given that the two tires are a comparible match as far as performance, rolling resistance ETC. Wider in the front, narrower in the back. I Dig the idea of more traction on a climb, but I do not think it is a worthwhile trade off for less cornerability. Last time I checked, even though your not shuttling, you still have to come down. Also, I dont belive that in this case, you would be able to have a noticable difference between having the 2.1 or 2.3 in front or rear, thats pretty close in size. Specially if they are the same Manf, and design. I mean lets be clear, comparing apples to apples ETC.
My bike, <looking at the XC side>will eitehr have the same size tires, or it will have bigger in the front, the small amount of climbing traction I will gain isnt worth the loss of cornering traction that will be lost.
Overall reality, run it how you feel is best for you, if bigger in the rear is better for you, go for it, Please, go for it. Ride your bikes, be happy, have fun.
Oh, and the road bikes with different size tires.......Only time we see that is on commuters that people just needed a tire. Any racers that have come in ALWAYS have the same size front and rear. Traction ISNT and issue on road bikes like it is on Mtn bikes. that would also be the reason for the lack of tread you normally see on a road tire as well.
So slap them tires on Buddy, and go for a ride!!!!!
My bike, <looking at the XC side>will eitehr have the same size tires, or it will have bigger in the front, the small amount of climbing traction I will gain isnt worth the loss of cornering traction that will be lost.
Overall reality, run it how you feel is best for you, if bigger in the rear is better for you, go for it, Please, go for it. Ride your bikes, be happy, have fun.
Oh, and the road bikes with different size tires.......Only time we see that is on commuters that people just needed a tire. Any racers that have come in ALWAYS have the same size front and rear. Traction ISNT and issue on road bikes like it is on Mtn bikes. that would also be the reason for the lack of tread you normally see on a road tire as well.
So slap them tires on Buddy, and go for a ride!!!!!
Although it becomes an interesting issue on a road bike once they break loose and you start sliding - in that case, I suspect that having them the same size helps considerably.
LOL, thats one way to put it, I always looked at it as Oh Sh^t when My road tires break loose!!!!
I get the Oh Sh^t reaction, but find after a lot of dirt hours that I can generally ride it out.
I ride a lot of wet off camber roots/rocks so a wide, soft tire in the back is crucial for me.
Aghhh, must spread...
Generally, I put a larger one on the front, but really, it's more important to have an appropriate tread pattern in the right place than the tiny difference the extra fraction of an inch of width would make.
So it's a case of what tires they are, not just what size.
So it's a case of what tires they are, not just what size.
What do YOU mean you people?!?
I can't believe no one bit on that one...