Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

29 x 2.5...

 

Those 650b plus tires just felt all wrong to me when I tried it out.

Thanks i figured they  (650 +)might be cool for one ride but day in day out they might be to much.  

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Done both, also gonna say 29x2.5.

 

The Slade's rear end is compliant enough, so no need for the plus sized rubber.

 

I am currently on Maxxis Agressor 2.5s front and rear with CushCore inserts - it rides super comfy.

Does the cuch core soften up the ride or does it just allow trye to be softer thus softening up the ride?

 

Ok so 2.5wt over 2.6 Rekons??

Posted (edited)

Does the cuch core soften up the ride or does it just allow trye to be softer thus softening up the ride?

 

Ok so 2.5wt over 2.6 Rekons??

Definitely 2.5 agg up front vs Rekon, 2.5 front and back is good too but the Rekon 2.6 would be a better rear and not that much wider at all. If it fits.

 

Cush is strange. Supports sidewalls and resuces squirm, but opens em up to cuts more as it's less compliant laterally. Allows you to run lower pressures and keep the performance the same (Lower overall air volume) but also allows you to get back home if you suffer a catastrophic failure.

 

Helps keep the tyre seated, too.

Edited by Captain Fastbastard Mayhem
Posted

Definitely 2.5 agg up front vs Rekon, 2.5 front and back is good too but the Rekon 2.6 would be a better rear and not that much wider at all. If it fits.

 

Cush is strange. Supports sidewalls and resuces squirm, but opens em up to cuts more as it's less compliant laterally. Allows you to run lower pressures and keep the performance the same (Lower overall air volume) but also allows you to get back home if you suffer a catastrophic failure.

 

Helps keep the tyre seated, too.

I brought up the Rekons as the standard bike comes with2.6 rekons front and rear.

Posted (edited)

I actually went from a Cotic Solaris Max to a Slade recently.

 

- The weights are pretty much on par.

- The big advantage of a steel frame is comfort, and there is no denying they ride softer than alu, but in this specific case I cannot feel the difference. The slade was designed to be quite compliant in the rear so as alu frames go it's comfy. This is not a comment on steel vs alu, rather Solaris vs Slade.

- The Cotic's build was just sublime, it's a premium frame and the small details like cable clips on the frame is superior. Eg: on the Slade I drilled a hole beneath the bb for water to drain. Another downside, that cable routing in the top tube - it works well, but not if you run back brake on the left.

- The thin tubing on steel bikes just look better (IMO)

- Pricing of steel is steep vs pricing of alu.

 

This might come across as negative towards the Slade, but it's not. I love my Slade, I just loved my Cotic a hell of alot. At the end of the day the Slade was a better choice for the riding I do. In short, the Slade is an awesome frame and I am amazed at how capable it is every time I ride it. I am finding it is the bike I reach for most when I walk into the garage.

 

But... if money is not an issue, and angles are exactly the same, I am always going to choose steel over alu - but that's just me. Steel makes me all tingly in the pants area, alu doesn't. That said, half of my bikes are alu just because of the value you get with it - good price, decent weight, durable.

 

post-59065-0-92570200-1596997818_thumb.jpg

 

Here's what happened to Grease_Monkey's Solaris Max... : )

Edited by jonminster
Posted

.great tyre, aggressor has slightly more aggressive tread but actually rolls really nicely. The 2.5 is a real 2.5, contrary to maxxis sizing standards.

 

I think it would be a good combo.

Reckon 2.6 rear and agressor 2.5 wt front?

 

Is the Agressor the modern version of DHRII

Posted

Reckon 2.6 rear and agressor 2.5 wt front?

 

Is the Agressor the modern version of DHRII

Ja. And no. I prefer it to the dhr2, personally. Dhr2 is still the "DH" tyre. Aggressor seems to roll and brake better than the dhr2 imo, but the side knobs aren't as aggressive and the tread is closer together which means it shouldn't be as good in the wet and at clearing mud.

 

Agg/Rekon would be grippy and fast. Obv slightly slower than agg/Ikon but imo the Rekon is a better rear tyre for all-round. Agg up front is lekka, from what I've read and heard.

Posted

Ja. And no. I prefer it to the dhr2, personally. Dhr2 is still the "DH" tyre. Aggressor seems to roll and brake better than the dhr2 imo, but the side knobs aren't as aggressive and the tread is closer together which means it shouldn't be as good in the wet and at clearing mud.

 

Agg/Rekon would be grippy and fast. Obv slightly slower than agg/Ikon but imo the Rekon is a better rear tyre for all-round. Agg up front is lekka, from what I've read and heard.

Thanks so i will opt for aggessor 2,5 front rekon 2.6 rear.  

 

Have you ever ridden a dissector , rumour has it it rolls better than both dhr2 and agressor but as much grip than both.

Posted (edited)

Does the cuch core soften up the ride or does it just allow trye to be softer thus softening up the ride?

 

Ok so 2.5wt over 2.6 Rekons??

Cush core does ride softer at any given pressure than without cush core (not much), but it also allows you to run lower pressure and keep sidewall stability, not burp, not bottom out your tire on your rim, etc.

 

Rekon vs Agressor - depends on the riding you do. I'd be keen to try out a 2.6 Rekon on the back with a 2.6 DHR2 on the front. But I am pretty happy with the Agressor front and rear combo on the hardtail for now.

 

Aggressor rolls fast enough for the rear, and the tread pattern means it is nice and grippy on the front - especially in loose over hard / dry trails in Western Cape summer. I'd still choose a DHR or DHF in the front in wet weather though.

 

The price of a 2.6 Rekon has put me off trying it. But it looks like a good rear tyre, even decent on the front for flowy or less steep stuff.

Edited by Grease_Monkey
Posted

Cush core does ride softer at any given pressure than without cush core (not much), but it also allows you to run lower pressure and keep sidewall stability, not burp, not bottom out your tire on your rim, etc.

 

Rekon vs Agressor - depends on the riding you do. I'd be keen to try out a 2.6 Rekon on the back with a 2.6 DHR2 on the front. But I am pretty happy with the Agressor front and rear combo on the hardtail for now.

 

Aggressor rolls fast enough for the rear, and the tread pattern means it is nice and grippy on the front - especially in loose over hard / dry trails in Western Cape summer. I'd still choose a DHR or DHF in the front in wet weather though.

 

The price of a 2.6 Rekon has put me off trying it. But it looks like a good rear tyre, even decent on the front for flowy or less steep stuff.

.I just wish it came in a stronger casing, the Rekon.

 

Agreed on wet weather dhf/dhr but personally I'd go for the assegai up front over those two, any day.

Posted

Thanks so i will opt for aggessor 2,5 front rekon 2.6 rear.

 

Have you ever ridden a dissector , rumour has it it rolls better than both dhr2 and agressor but as much grip than both.

Not yet, it wasn't here when I last bought tyres (got a DHR2 instead, don't like it at the back tho) but I wanna try it.

  • 1 year later...
Posted

Hi I'm wanting to find out if anyone has bought bike parts from chain reaction cycles and it has arrive just little worried as I'm wanting to purchase a nukeproof bike frame and get it shipped down to SA. Thanks

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout