bustthesickness Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Ok' date=' so kind of on topic, what is the diffs between 2.2 and 2.4 is that the width of the tyre? also is one more suited to a use then the other. eg, why would you take a 2.4 over a 2.2?[/quote']Tyre width is measured in inches. 2.4 inch = 6.09600 centimeters2.2 inch = 5.58800 centimeters Basically, you have more volume with the 2.4, so you can run lower pressure giving you more traction and handling without pinching. The wider footprint gives you more grip. Most cross country style bikes can't run 2.4's though because there is not enough clearance between the frame and the tyre.
DeltaOscar Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 Ok' date=' so kind of on topic, what is the diffs between 2.2 and 2.4 is that the width of the tyre? also is one more suited to a use then the other. eg, why would you take a 2.4 over a 2.2?[/quote']Tyre width is measured in inches. 2.4 inch = 6.09600 centimeters2.2 inch = 5.58800 centimetersBasically, you have more volume with the 2.4, so you can run lower pressure giving you more traction and handling without pinching. The wider footprint gives you more grip. Most cross country style bikes can't run 2.4's though because there is not enough clearance between the frame and the tyre. That would be 2.4's on the back though.Contis historically run small for their published size.Just to make it more confusing, manufacturers marked sizes are often not accurate.
bustthesickness Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Ok' date=' so kind of on topic, what is the diffs between 2.2 and 2.4 is that the width of the tyre? also is one more suited to a use then the other. eg, why would you take a 2.4 over a 2.2?[/quote']Tyre width is measured in inches. 2.4 inch = 6.09600 centimeters2.2 inch = 5.58800 centimeters Basically, you have more volume with the 2.4, so you can run lower pressure giving you more traction and handling without pinching. The wider footprint gives you more grip. Most cross country style bikes can't run 2.4's though because there is not enough clearance between the frame and the tyre. That would be 2.4's on the back though.Contis historically run small for their published size.Just to make it more confusing, manufacturers marked sizes are often not accurate. True, the Conti's look more like 2.3's. Actually I have a Tioga Yellow Kirin that looks wider than the 2.4 Conti, and it's a 2.3! and yeah, Normally frame/tyre clearance refers to the rear.
Santa C Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Geax Barro's 2.3 on the front and 2.1 at the back
Fleming Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I have only recently started mountain biking again after taking a break for a few years and to me it seems like madness to put the same tire on front and back. Guess I need to get used to it though. I can remember in the 90's all the best tyres were front and back specific and you bought them in sets. I am thinking of: IRC Mythos WTB Velociraptor Panaracer Fire XC (Think that was the name. Could be wrong though)
DeltaOscar Posted January 13, 2009 Author Posted January 13, 2009 Panaracer Smoke and Dart.But also elastomer forks, disc wheels, tri bars and thumb shifters on top of the handlebar.
Fleming Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Panaracer Smoke and Dart.But also elastomer forks' date=' disc wheels, tri bars and thumb shifters on top of the handlebar.[/quote'] Yes that was it. I remember you could get them in a beige colour which was supposed to be more grippier but wore out quicker. Those were the days.
SeanScalpel Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 I have a Kenda Small Block Eight 2.1 and a Kenda Blue Groove 2.0. A pic of the Kenda Small Block Eight: http://www.ykkbikes.com/files/SB8.jpg A pic of the Kenda Blue Groove: http://www.ykkbikes.com/files/BlueGroove.jpg Which one would you guys recommend using on the front and which one on the rear? And why? SeanGT2009-02-27 06:36:53
Daniel XTR Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Like some of the others here, im on a Larson 2.0 at the rear and a Cross Mark 2.1 upfront. Only thing is the Larson is Hopeless in mud
Anthony Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 seanGT, put the small block on the rear. it is a much faster tyre, less rolling resistance...
SeanScalpel Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 seanGT' date=' put the small block on the rear. it is a much faster tyre, less rolling resistance...[/quote'] I was actually thinking the Small Block 8 in the front because it will have better corner traction and the Blue Groove at the back because it still has fairly low rolling resistance but will be the better one in mud?
Dirtbreath Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 seanGT' date=' put the small block on the rear. it is a much faster tyre, less rolling resistance...[/quote'] Your problem then is that your back wheel moves faster than your front causing your back end to overtake you which results in you losing control. Unless you have an articulated frame. Then you're OK.
Goodbadugly Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 seanGT' date=' put the small block on the rear. it is a much faster tyre, less rolling resistance...[/quote']Your problem then is that your back wheel moves faster than your front causing your back end to overtake you which results in you losing control. Unless you have an articulated frame. Then you're OK. The back wheel overtaking the front?? You are saying it tongue in the cheek. Right?
Dirtbreath Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 seanGT' date=' put the small block on the rear. it is a much faster tyre, less rolling resistance...[/quote'] Your problem then is that your back wheel moves faster than your front causing your back end to overtake you which results in you losing control. Unless you have an articulated frame. Then you're OK. The back wheel overtaking the front?? You are saying it tongue in the cheek. Right? So firmly that my cheek hurts.
XTC OKE Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 It look stupid just keep the same tyres and get Racing Ralphs
Goodbadugly Posted March 1, 2009 Posted March 1, 2009 Selling a different front and back tire is a concept. Many riders buy into it. I have tried a few combo's.-Crossmark at the back. Monorail front.-Killerbee/SB8 back. Nobby Nick front.-Intense systems2 back. Monorail/Nobby Nic front.-Race king back. Mountain king front.-Speed king back. Mountain king front.I cannot say that one of these combos are vastly superior to another. At the moment I have chosen the Monorail as a front and back tire. The reason? It seems to me that a skittish tire at the front will also break away more easily at the back. Most of our riding in RSA is XC/trail.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now