question regarding tyres...could someone explain this to me?

accrington guy

having read a quite alot on here about who has what tyres on their bike etc I have always wondered why some folk have 2.3's on the back and 2.1's on the front ( using that as an example).. whats the benefit of this ?
sorry if this is another daft question by me but I will never know if I dont ask..

thanks..

dunker

more grip on steep muddy climbs maybe?

switchback18

It's not usual to have a skinnier tyre on the front - most people recon if they're different then the fat one on the front. I prefer same size front & rear, maybe different tread patterns though.

Skinny on the front might give slightly odd steering, but for me, skinny on the rear just gives too many snakebites. I like Kenda Nevegals 2.35 DTC or stick E front & rear - awesome grip.

s-worksenduro

As Switchback says, it should normally be the skinnier tyre on the rear, because then if you are cornering a bit too fast, it is the rear wheel that steps out first which is a lot easier to correct than the front wheel. Having more grip at the front also helps to direct the bike more and the little bit more weight at the front gives more momentum and helps to roll over obstacles (rock, roots etc).
It is also the case that people will have different types of tyres front or rear, and if you look at front and rear specific tyres (smoke and darts, minions etc) you will see that the tread on the front goes in the direction of travel for the edges to catch when cornering, and the rear has tread perpendicular to travel for the edges to catch when pedalling/climbing.
There is no right or wrong way of doing it, the best way is to experiment, but this can get expensive!!

accrington guy

thanks for the replys guys...it clears that one up for me..

stumpyjon

I run 2.1s front and rear, but at the moment the rear is a 2.1 Trailraker which is narrow by 2.1 standards and is a dedicated mud tyre for powering through all the gloop we've got at the moment.

Northwind

I've got an assortment of tyres which I swap around, 2.3f/2.1r for trail centres, 2.1 both ends for natural trails... But lately I've been using the 2.3 on the rear quite a bit on my local trails, for extra climbing traction and shock absorption. It's noticably more draggy, but it does help.

You have to consider your riding. On my local loops, I'll very very rarely want more traction than my front 2.1 stick-e can offer... But it's pretty common that I'll want more from the rear, especially at this time of year- so the slightly narrower front doesn't hurt but the fatter rear gets me up faces I wouldn't manage otherwise, with my level of tecnhique. At Glentress, I want more front grip because the rear never runs out. It's all relative.

Oh, and I mentioned shock absorption... With the fat rear, I stay in the saddle on sections that I wouldn't with the 2.1. That's pretty nice...

Basically, don't take anyone else's word for it, play around and see what you like. It only takes a few minutes to change a tyre after all, and you might find something that works well for you.

Daz555

My Spesh FSRxc came with 2.2 front and only 2.0 rear which I think is a little odd. I'm tight so I'm not going to chuck the tyre until it is well used. I'll probably replace it with something fatter eventually but still need to take mud clearance into account.