Tyres 2.2 or 2.4?

generalzod

I'd just like to have your opinion on changing tyres. I'm running 2.30's on Mavic 321 rims at the minute and the tyres are a bit poo, so wanted to upgrade.
Thing is, what significant difference is there if i go up in size to 2.4 or down to 2.2?
Cheers for any help.

supersonic

What bike, forks, and terrain?

generalzod

Kona Coiler, Marzocchi Drop Offs, Singletrack/ 'Aggressive' XC ...

dave_hill

What tyres are you runnign now and what are you planning to uprgade to?

generalzod

Tioga Factory DH (yes, i know!)
And was looking at changing to Continental Mountain King

Tom Barton

Ummm - Not so much an answer as information. The contis come up very narrow compared to pretty much everything else.

2.2's will feel like very skinny 2.1 xc tyres

2.4's come up at about the same width as a maxxis highroller or minion 2.3 but look less substaintial as the contis have well spaced blocks and the maxxis tyres have lots.

2.2. are in my meager opinion at least are xc tyres and the 2.4s are all mountain tyres. I have used the 2.4s recently and didnt get on with them. They certainly shed a bit of rolling weight and rolled fast but I did notice less grip when cornering and have returned to my trusted highrollers. I am a particulary aggressive all mountian rider however and your needs may not be mine..

Northwind

I had the MK 2.2 Supersonics for a little bit, I thought they were absolutely horrendous. Narrower than their printed size, since they were measured in Manhood Inches, but more importantly they just didn't grip. They weren't close to fast enough or light enough to excuse the poor traction. Still, most people with the 2.4s seem to rate them.

Some tyres roll and act pretty differently dependant on sizes, frinstance my kenda blue groove fronts, the 2.35 is slooooooow while the 2.1 is OK... But on the other hand, the Small Blocks are very similiar in speed in either 2.1 or 2.35. It's not as simple as some would have it, ie big = slow, some big tyres are very fast.

ads4

Couple of guys I ride with run 2.4 MK front and 2.2 MK rear.

I'm running a 2.2 Bonty XDX rear and a 2.3 Conti Vertical front.

bomberesque

+1 for Maxxis HRs

if you're set on the contis then I'd go 2.4s on a coiler

.blitz

Agreed MKs come up on the small side. The 2.2s are low-volume XC tyres but the 2.4s are better. Your wheel rim width will determine how big the tyres are when mounted. A wide tyre on a narrow rim will not have enough support.

Gwaredd

I've just changed from 1.9 Tioga Factory XC tyres to 2.2 Mountain King tyres & can't honestly see any difference in an increased width! Wish I'd gone even wider now.

elPedro666

Another vote for 'bigger is better'. Have you looked at the Conti Rubber Queen? Maybe as a front with the MK on the back, just sounds like it might suit you better. Maybe...

dave_hill

generalzod wrote:

Tioga Factory DH (yes, i know!) And was looking at changing to Continental Mountain King

But again, you're looking at changing from a full-on downhill tyre to an XC tyre.

So can you tell us what your bike is, what type of riding you intend doing and what sort of surfaces?

passout

Maxxis HRs are good - there are different types to suit your riding...folding, single or double ply.

For a 'do it all' tyre aimed your average weekend warrior (like me) the Panaracer 2.25 Cinder is very good. Not fast but great in every other respect, a bit like the HRs really.

cerouax

The Tioga Factory 2.1s I had many moons ago on my old hardtail looked one hell of a lot bigger than the 2.1 High Rollers that replaced them. This was a massive improvement to the ride though. For the Coiler, I would go for the bigger size- they may still look smaller/ around the same as the 2.3 Tiogas.