Why a 2.4 on the back tire?

PB Forum :: Bikes, Parts, and Gear
Why a 2.4 on the back tire?
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Message
Posted: May 2, 2021 at 10:17 Quote
I just bought a Trek Fuel EX 9.8 XT. Love the bike, but there's one small puzzle---the bike comes with a 29x2.6 tire on the front and a 29x2.4 tire on the back. I checked the website and it's advertised this way, so it wasn't an error or an out-of-stock situation when it was built.

I'm mildly curious as to why they'd make this specific configuration decision.

Posted: May 3, 2021 at 5:04 Quote
It could just be the frame design restricting the max tire size.

Posted: May 3, 2021 at 5:24 Quote
I like running something skinnier on the back. It's less likely to suffer sidewall damage and it doesn't squirm as much in hard cornering. A bigger tire in the front is nice, as the large volume tire dampens the trail chatter better and helps maintain control.

Posted: May 3, 2021 at 5:38 Quote
It's almost the norm to see skinnier rear tire rather than equal sized tires.

Posted: May 3, 2021 at 6:15 Quote
I run a 2.5 on the front with a 2.4 on the rear myself.

Posted: May 3, 2021 at 7:06 Quote
I run a similar setup with tire size. This is for the same reason rear while drive cars often have skinnier front tires.

It's is for the purpose of reduced grip. On a rear wheel drive car you would rather have more rear grip than front as you don't want the car to spin when applying power. On a mountain bike you would probably prefer the rear to brake traction before the front.

Posted: May 3, 2021 at 7:09 Quote
Fat tire in the back makes sense for hardtails, but for full sus bikes it is a good compromise to sacrify a little bit of grip and damping for rolling resistance (and tire clearance). Most grip is needed up front, so large, grippy tire up front.

Previous Page | Next Page

Copyright © 2000 - 2022. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.005197
Mobile Version of Website