tire ?

[warchild]

what is the difference between the tires you put on the front and the ones you put on the rear

[Brizn]

Amazing. .

[tuba_transport]

For ME the difference is as such.

I pinch flat a lot in the rear tire because I am heavy and like to plow through rocky stuff fast. I hardly ever pinch flat the front tire.

So I need either a very heavy sidewall, very heavy tube, or tubeless out back. I choose a real tubeless tire to also get a slightly heavier sidewall to protect from sidewall tears.

I like very tacky tire compounds. I ain't a racer even if I have entered a race or two. I prefer sticking to wet roots, rocks, and fast corners over rolling more efficiently. There is a balance but my balance is shifted.

So I need a low durameter, ie lower is stickier, number for my tires overall.

My rear tires wear way too fast for my budget to justify at roughly $50 a pop. My fronts last pretty good unless I am doing a lot of downhill runs in rocks.

So the rear tire needs to be either dual tread compound or a slightly harder durameter than the front. Say 60 in back and 50 in front. No 70 if I can help it. Ick!

My rear tire gets beat up by my heavier weight and my riding style of aiming for the squarest rock while going downhill faster that TriCare would care to know about.

So I need a higher air volume tire in back for trips to Gambrill and the Shed. 2.4" in back on the big bike and a 2.35 on back on the less big bike.

My bike and tires overall are too heavy for most cross country riding so I compromise with a "smaller" tire up front. 2.35 on the big bike and 2.1 on the less big bike.

I do not wear front tires out nearly as fast as rear tires and like tacky compound tires.

So I run a 50 durameter or so Kenda Sticky-E compound up front.

There are other factors which are marketed like rear tires propel forward and front tires handle steering and braking forces more so they make treads geared towards those purposes. The most famous example is the Panaracer Dart and Smoke tires sets.
http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Tire/Panaracer_Smoke_and_Dart_Classic.jp g
The rear Smoke is left and the front Dart is right in the above pic. Notice the paddles on the rear tire and the front tractor tire like dart shaped treads of the Dart.

I have not noticed the marketed reasons so much.

Anyways, tire testing is EXPENSIVE and I have far from played with all of them but have ridden enough to know generally what I like for aggressive riding. The XC racing speed freaks who climb like banshees and then shuttle to the BOTTOM of the hill to climb it again will have totally different preferences.

[Jackson]

what is the difference between the tires you put on the front and the ones you put on the rear

Someone more technically well-versed than I will chime in, but some folks prefer tires than accent different characteristics. I run the same time front and back, but the back tire is on "reversed" to give it more grip, at a probable increase in rolling resistance.

But I'm probably not fast enough to notice. Sometimes people run bigger tires upfront, and narrower tires in the back.

[Jackson]

Amazing. .

???????????????

[Brizn]

Warchild, I believe Tuba's response should be of help to ya.

???????????????Yea.. sorry; I was just being a brat. On the tail of all the recent LIGHT threads, this TIRE thread just kinda struck me. :o It's a good question, tho. :D (For those that don't know, light and tire threads are,... well, ..very popular. And if you search for "lights" or "tires" in the gear talk forum, you'll find somewhere in the order of about 5,622 threads answering questions you probably didn't even know you had). :D

[warchild]

ok cool,i didnt know if there was a standard for the tires.

yes brizn you are a brat,jeez. :rolleyes: J/K i know im a newb just give me a break

[jabberwocky]

Front and rear tires have slightly different "ideal" characteristics. Front tires generally are designed to give very good side-to-side grip (for steering), with less emphasis placed on fore-aft grip and rolling resistance. Rear tires have a tread pattern designed to give very good grip fore-aft (for putting power down) and have lower rolling resistance (since most of your weight is on the rear tire when mtbing).

It varies a lot though. Some tire models are the same for front and rear, and others have a front-specific and rear-specific model. Lots of people like to mix and match brands/models/sizes between the front and back. There have been lots of tire threads on the forum in the past, so if you are looking for a recommendation I would suggest starting with a search. If you still are confused after reading some of the past threads, let us know.

[tuba_transport]

Sometimes people run bigger tires upfront, and narrower tires in the back.

I think there are two reasons people do this.

The first is because historically as newer suspension forks came along they allowed for fatter and fatter tires, while the frames only had room for maybe 2.1" tires in back. So folk ran the biggest tires they could get away with. 2.35" in front and those "gigantic" 2.1" tires in the rear.

Later some people preferred the extra grip and cushion of the fatter front tires when descending fast in technical stuff. The weight penalty is real as is the rolling resistance of fatter tires. So they bought smaller tires for the rear either dictated by frame tolerances or just because they were trying to cut down on the speed loss in acceleration due to the weight. Compromise.

I run a larger rear than front because I kept flatting in the rear. I may end up with a 2.5" on the front one day out of curiosity. I might also end up with a smaller 2.35 in the rear if I can find one in tubeless which has the grip I am after and is as "Set it and Forget it." as the one I got on there now. And weighs under 1kg!

ps. Tire threads are still interesting to me. Hopefully this one will pop up on someone's search one day and be helpful.

tuba "newb in disguise" transport

[Brizn]

On rough, rocky trails.. I prefer the volume, stability, and footprint of a big fatty up front; maybe 2.35 - 2point5. A fatty will also help with cornering, obviously. In the rear, I prefer something with volume and good grip, but a bit narrower to preserve whatever smidgen of momentum i muster. Like a 2.3 or 2point35 or so.

On fast dirt singletrack, I still like volume.. but shallower tread and less rolling resistance. I also like running same size tires F & R on these kinds of trails. Super deep, tacky tread for cornering and gripping rocks not so much an issue on these trails, imo.

Tire polls are fun and helpful, too.. Like, just ask ppl what tires/psi they're runnin' these days. For me:

For rocky trails: F) Kenda Blue Groove 2.35, R) Continental Diesel 2.5
Formerly ran F) Specialized Enduro Pro 2.4, R) Enduro Sport 2.2

Faster dirt trails: WTB MutanoRaptors 2.4, F and R

[tuba_transport]

Tire polls are fun

For me:

For rocky trails: F) Kenda Blue Groove 2.35, R) Continental Diesel 2.5
Formerly ran F) Specialized Enduro Pro 2.4, R) Enduro Sport 2.2

Faster dirt trails: WTB MutanoRaptors 2.4, F and R

6" travel bike: Kenda Blue Groove Stick-E 2.35 front, Specialized Enduro Pro 2Bliss 2.4 rear

4" travel bike: Kenda Blue Groove Stick-E 2.1 front, Kenda Nevegal DTC 2.35 rear

ps. Brizn, your frame built up to 32lbs. I gotta get some snaps to ya.

[Pinoy Rider]

I run Kenda Nevegals 2.1s front and rear. However, a Stick-e front and a DTC rear. The stickier front tire to prevent washing out. The DTC, dual tread compound, has a better durometer for wear down the middle than the outside knobs of the tire. Lots of different options and opinions.

[pepelkod]

The first is because historically as newer suspension forks came along they allowed for fatter and fatter tires, while the frames only had room for maybe 2.1" tires in back. So folk ran the biggest tires they could get away with. 2.35" in front and those "gigantic" 2.1" tires in the rear.

Later some people preferred the extra grip and cushion of the fatter front tires when descending fast in technical stuff. The weight penalty is real as is the rolling resistance of fatter tires. So they bought smaller tires for the rear either dictated by frame tolerances or just because they were trying to cut down on the speed loss in acceleration due to the weight. Compromise.

I did this on my Dos Niner. Panaracer Rampage 2.35 up front with a WTB Nanoraptor 2.1 in the rear. Initially I did it for clearance reasons, but I really like the way it rides. The Rampage has big knobs for digging into the turn, but the Nano is smooth enough for faster rolling resistance. The added benefit is that the back allways breaks free before the front so I am more confident going hard into a turn, knowing that if the back starts to move I need to adjust and correct. My setup is an extreme example though.

One other thing. I like the Nano in dry weather, but the last Cranky Monkey race was muddy and the tire was HORRID. It has little tread yet managed to collect all the mud on the trail. The Rampage was fine in the mud.

-Doug

edit- these are both 29er tires, but same applies to 26.

[werace424]

I always run the same tires. I can't afford different tire sets for where I ride, I also don't get around as much as I used to, so I don't need them either.

I use Kenda Nevegal 2.35 on the front.
Maxis Crossmark 2.1 on the rear.

This combo was recommended by my LBS by the guy that races professionally. I did some experimenting with different tires before I found what I like. So feel free to search around. Sometimes a rider is selling a tire that just doesn't suite them, but you may love to ride. A good way to check out different tires.

The different tire widths has something to do with traction, rolling resistance, and actually helping the bike turn. One thing on that....I was told "NEVER go wider on the rear and narrower on the front". This would tend to make the bike "push".

Paul

[tuba_transport]

I was told "NEVER go wider on the rear and narrower on the front". This would tend to make the bike "push".

Not entirely true. There are lots of issues which can effect this including rubber compound. Grip of different tread patterns. Weight balance between front and rear wheels in different situations. Body English. Turning technique. Tire pressures. etc etc etc

I run a fatter rear tire than front and if anything my rear breaks free before the front. In my case it has to do with having a softer front tire and how I shift weight and guide the rear of the bike using my legs pushing the saddle around switchbacks and hard corners.

Perhaps I am naive because I have never really felt the need for more front tire.

tuba "tires and lights" transport

[jed]

I'm a XC racer primarily, so I lean toward skinnier faster tires with smaller knobs. I'm medium sized at 150 lbs and typically run tire pressures in the high 20's or low 30's. I don't run inner tubes, I either run regular tires tubeless with Stans or run UST tires. I won't race on UST tires unless it's really rocky, e.g., Michaux, because they are heavy, but they are great for training because they are durable and reliable.

My tires of choice lately have been Maxxis CrossMark eXCeption series. They are 2.1 and work really well in a variety of conditions. They grip almost as well as a 2.35 Nevagal up front in dry loose stuff and perform much better overall on hardpack than a Nevagal. They are fast and light. They grip amazingly well for as fast as they are and as small as the knobs are. They aren't so hot in really muddy conditions and the eXCeption series wear out quickly, but you can't have it all. Maxxis makes the CrossMark in a variety of compounds; the cheaper ones with harder rubber should wear better.

The Hutchinson Pirahna is similar, I like those a lot too. I have raced a bit on the 2.0 Air Light ones. I think they are available in 2.3 as well. They also work amazingly well in dry loose stuff yet still roll fast.

I have my Stumpy FSR set up with a Nevagal 2.35 up front and a Specialized Rockster Pro 2.1 UST on the back. This combo is pretty good for technical trail riding. The Nevagal is great in really rocky stuff because of its volume and the grip is incredible when things get soft/loose. It is a slow roller though, and pretty heavy, a bit much for places like Schaeffers and Patapsco IMHO. Still, it's not too bad as a front tire as far as rolling. The Rockster UST is great on the back in rocks, it is a really fast tire but it has enough side knobs for cornering. It is a true 2.1 so it is pretty big and the UST action allows me to pretty much fly on rocks without worrying too much about flatting.

I generally like a bigger tire up front for control and a smaller one in the back to minimize rotating weight and rolling resistence, if I'm going to run different sizes front and rear. Usually I run the same sizes front and rear. It really depends on what I have laying around. It seems like I can get away with pretty minimal tread on the rear most of the time so I try to make sure that at least the rear tire is a fast roller.

I like messing around with different tires, I wish I had the money to try everything that I'd like to try. There are so many good choices nowadays it seems like it's hard to go wrong. Certain tires work better for certain people in certain conditions, but beyond that I think it's hard to find a tire that is truly awful at everything all the time.

[warchild]

you run low 30s, i thought it was better to be higher,closer to 50? Im not doing any really technical rides,i didnt know if the psi changed per terrain or what.

[Brizn]

you run low 30s, i thought it was better to be higher,closer to 50? Im not doing any really technical rides,i didnt know if the psi changed per terrain or what.Yea, PSI should vary depending on any number or combination of factors: rider size, riding style, tire volume, terrain, trail condition, and style of bike being ridden to name the big ones.

PSI basics:

A lower psi causes the tire to squish out a little bit, putting more rubber on the ground (leaving a larger "footprint")-- more rubber on the ground = better traction bc there's more contact--- but more rubber on the ground also means it's going 2 be slower. People with rigid bikes often ride bigger volume tires at lower psi so they can have some bump absorption without pinch flatting (which is when your wheel pinches the inner tube against the ground on impact, causing it to break and flat out). If you run tubeless tires, you can lower your PSI without worrying about pinch-flatting the tube because, well, there is no tube.

Higher PSI = less rubber on the ground (smaller footprint), which means it will roll faster bc there's less contact/friction. Less contact/friction = decreased traction. Higher psi also makes a pinch flat much less likely- as the tire is 'harder' and does not deform as easily upon sharp impacts. People with full suspension bikes will often run higher PSI. Suspension allows these riders to go really fast down hills and over sharp bumps.. As such, they need more protection against pinch flats, so they jack their PSI up a little more.

[warchild]

ahhh, that broke it down perfect,thanks.

[philman]

matter a lot, in my experience. What I look for are small, closely spaced knobs in the center changing to deeper knobs on the edge. For a couple of years I ran WTB Mutanoraptors on my Stumpy and was very happy. Low rolling resistance on hardpack with the center tread profile, but when the trail softened up and they sank in a bit the aggresive side knobs keep you hooked up. The section of the tire is sorta square, so when you lay the bike over just a little the side knobs grab and keep you on course. They wear like iron, so I guess they don't qualify as sticky, but I like them as a all around high volume tire.

This year I changed to Intense System 4's on that bike to save a little weight. They have a more rounded profile, and the side knobs are a bit less aggresive. It seems like because of the profile when you lay it over you still get a good bite because your keeping a wide foot print on the trail. I'm liking them as much as the WTB's for riding, and enjoying the weight savings on long days in the GWF. They are holding up fine after one season, but I doubt they will last as long as the WTB's. Oh yeah, both are 2.4's. If you ride XC routes with lots of rocks ;i.e. the Shed, GWF, etc, tires like these will get you through. I stress XC, because IMHP for that you want to balance speed over hardpack and grip over rocks.

If most of your riding (as it may be as a noob) is on the relatively fast trails of Schaeffer's, Wak-a-tink, R'ville, etc., you can downsize both the tread and tire size. I was running a Conti Explorer on the front and a Twister on the back of my HT for a while, but this summer, after the System 4 worked out for me on the squish I tried the Intense System 2's on that bike. Relatively small, widely spaced knobs on a rounded carcass. Designed, they say, for hardpack, and they worked great for me over this dry, dry summer. I may not like them as much when things soften up and get a bit wetter. They are a 2.2 I think.

Anyway, look at the tires you have now and try and imagine what part of the tread is is hitting the ground on hardpack, soft stuff and in turns. If you're not flying on the hardpack and fire roads the center knobs are probably too high and widely spaced. If you lose traction in loose stuff on climbs you might need a little more knob away from the center, and if your washing out in turns you need more aggresive edges.

Happy trails

Pat

[nocro]

Yea, PSI should vary depending on any number or combination of factors: rider size, riding style, tire volume, terrain, trail condition, and style of bike being ridden to name the big ones.

PSI basics:


I ride mostly Montgomery County trails, and currently use 2.1Panaracer Fire XCs (both of which are hand me downs ) that I keep in the 35-45 PSI range. I've experimented a bit, and have never found a tire that I really loved.

But then again, the only tire that I rode on trails that I realized I couldn't ride on trails was a vrederstein street slick. I took my city bike to trails one time just to try it out. It was fast on the flats, but I fell several times in the corners. There were no knobs at all, there wasn't even inverted tread (like the conti town and country) and the tires just couldn't grip in the corners.

We've all probably ridden with the back tire on the front, or vice versa, at least once. Or with the tread direction backward. The different compounds, tread patterns, brands, beads, sidewalls, weights, are tuning to the specific type of riding that is done. Point is the tires still work although they may be suboptimal.

My tendency is to put more pressure into the tires when there are more rocks on the trail to prevent pinch flats. This has the unfortunate effect of reducing the tire's ability to grab the rocks during climbs.

You might buy a couple of bargain basement tires on sale at your LBS or from postings in the marketplace section. It is best to apply all this gear talk by actually riding :D and experimenting with new combinations. But don't get too wrapped up in the tires making the rider. My suggestion is to ride them until the knobs start to fall off, then get some new ones. ( Right SG? )

[jabberwocky]

You might buy a couple of bargain basement tires on sale at your LBS or from postings in the marketplace section. It is best to apply all this gear talk by actually riding :D and experimenting with new combinations. But don't get too wrapped up in the tires making the rider. My suggestion is to ride them until the knobs start to fall off, then get some new ones. ( Right SG? )I actually disagree. I think tires are probably the best place to spend money on the entire bike. When a new rider asks what upgrades they should make to their entry level bike, tires are usually my number 2 recommendation (after clipless pedals). The difference between a set of cheap tires and a set of good tires is huge.

The FireXC is the tire I almost always recommend to newbies for this area. Its an inexpensive yet very effective all around tire (and is also quite durable).

I run tires until they get worn enough to start effecting grip (or the sidewalls get too torn up). Its easy to tell when a tire is worn because I suddenly start washing out in places where the tire would previously dig in.

Tire pressure plays a big role how well a tire works. I tend to run between 32psi and 40psi on my 26er depending on where I'm riding. Usually mid-30s is the sweet spot for me. Higher than 40 and it kills my traction, and under 30 I pinch flat too frequently. On my 29er I tend to run about 5 psi less.

[nocro]

I actually disagree. I think tires are probably the best place to spend money on the entire bike. When a new rider asks what upgrades they should make to their entry level bike, tires are usually my number 2 recommendation (after clipless pedals). The difference between a set of cheap tires and a set of good tires is huge.

The FireXC is the tire I almost always recommend to newbies for this area. Its an inexpensive yet very effective all around tire (and is also quite durable).

I run tires until they get worn enough to start effecting grip (or the sidewalls get too torn up). Its easy to tell when a tire is worn because I suddenly start washing out in places where the tire would previously dig in.

Tire pressure plays a big role how well a tire works. I tend to run between 32psi and 40psi on my 26er depending on where I'm riding. Usually mid-30s is the sweet spot for me. Higher than 40 and it kills my traction, and under 30 I pinch flat too frequently. On my 29er I tend to run about 5 psi less.

When I said "bargain basement" tires, I meant moderately priced tires at cheaper prices, as a way to experiment to find something that works. No need to spend $50 per tire, when the difference I actually discern for the extra $25 is faster wear. I'm just not a "race/performance" sort of rider. $25 - $30 per tire is about as high as I will go, and I think that $35 per pair is a reasonable value.

That being said, maybe I'll splurge on some $50 tires just to experiment to see if I notice the difference. My current experimentation is directed toward volume adjustments to get bigger tires so I can run slightly lower pressure and not pinch flat.

As far as the tire upgrade from super cheap tires, you are right and I am wrong. :p I don't look at entry level bikes, nor did I consider that the tires that come on them probably really suck. Your clinics must provide good insight in that regard, and bring you into contact with lots of folks who are riding low end bikes.

But I'll still wear my tires (and other parts) out until I couldn't possibly ride them anymore. Then when I put new tires on (or someone else's throw aways on), I'll appreciate them. MTB part addiction can be stupidly expensive.

I went to the Panaracers because they were given to me as cast offs from SquirrelGirl. I had something else before that on wheels I bought from Sidr, and I had Bontrager Jones before that. Some IRC Mythos in there. They all just seem about the same to me.

About PSI. I weight 190 lbs. I'm going to guess that Jabber ways about 150 lbs. PV=nRT . My heavy butt compresses that back tire more.

[nocro]

When I said "bargain basement" tires, I meant moderately priced tires at cheaper prices, as a way to experiment to find something that works. No need to spend $50 per tire, when the difference I actually discern for the extra $25 is faster wear.

Like this:
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=18351&estore_ID=115