Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Rekon vs aggressor for a rear tire?

Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 89 Posts
#41 ·
zambo78 said:
Hi, that's looks like a good trail setup.... i'm always searching the best tires setup... buying and switching tires to find a good compromise of grip/weight/personal preference
...i'm on a trail full susp 130mm bike, with 29i rims... actually XR4 2.6 front and XR3 2.4 rear..

I like the cushion effect of a 2.6 in front.. maybe i will try a DHR2 2.6 exo in front and a Rekon 2.4 on rear.. or a faster rolling Rekon 2.6 front and Ikon 2.35 rear..

Two questions for you based on your experience:
- FRONT: How much will i loose in terms of grip with a Rekon 2.6 in front instead of a XR4 2.6 or DHR2 2.6 in front when the trail become more aggressive? (no mud or "extremly enduro" rocky stuff) I know they are different tires and you simply can't have the best of both... but it's a rekon front still enjoable in the descents and confidence inspiring?
- REAR: How much will a Ikon 2.35 on rear give up in terms of grip/braking instead of a Rekon 2.4 and how much will the ikon roll better instead of the rekon? Is it worth to give the ikon a try or the gain in term of rollingresistance is only minimal but the advantage in braking effect when it's steep is bigger?

I have also to pedal uphill and/or pavement to go to the trails... so rolling resistance is also important for me...

thanks
Click to expand...
BTW, my 2.4 Rekons are on 30i rims.

Re your first question, not much, IMO. You will give up a bit, but the volume of the 2.6 is nice and inspires confidence.

Re the second question, I'd say the Ikon 2.35 will perform similarly to the Rekon 2.4. They actually measure out to about the same, in practice. And the Ikon may roll a bit better. I run Ikon 2.35's on my SS and geared HR, and love them. I will put them on this bike for race situations. The Ikon is a great tire.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#42 ·
richj8990 said:
I agree that the Rekon is a nice jack of all trades tire but it's not quite as good as a Minion. I don't mind it up front but I don't think it would have enough traction for me in back. Decent in a straight line, not very good cornering. BTW if you are doing better on a 2.35 than a 2.60 then you are either on easy terrain or you are a good rider! I gave up on 2.35 in the front a while ago.
Click to expand...
I think a 2.35" DHF would be better than a 2.6" Ikon, in challenging terrain.
(I'm not THAT good of a rider! ;) )
I have a 2.6" DHF/2.5 Aggressor combo that I greatly prefer over the 2.35" NoNi combo, except the combo is slower. I'd say the size of these tires is only germaine between the same make and model.

From some of these posts, I am beginning to wonder if the 2.4" version of the Rekon might not be better than the 2.6" version. Waltaz's pictures seem to depict a tire with more aggressive tread at that smaller diameter than what my 2.6's look like. My experience with the 2.6's could be substantially different than what the ride might be like on the 2.4".
 
#43 ·
MSU Alum said:
From some of these posts, I am beginning to wonder if the 2.4" version of the Rekon might not be better than the 2.6" version. Waltaz's pictures seem to depict a tire with more aggressive tread at that smaller diameter than what my 2.6's look like. My experience with the 2.6's could be substantially different than what the ride might be like on the 2.4".
Click to expand...
Watching weights a smaller Rekon 2.4 in dual compound is 800gr... a wider rekon 2.6 in 3cmaxxterra compound is 780gr... maybe they have spared on the 120tpi casing instead of the 60tpi.. but also the knobs are taller and bigger on the 2.4? more material?

Maybe Waltaz that have both tires can confirm that the tread pattern of the 2.4 is more "aggressive" than the 2.6?
I'm also interested if the shape of the two tires is more round on the 2.6 rekon instead of the 2.4... both on 30i rims...
thanks
 
#45 ·
zambo78 said:
Watching weights a smaller Rekon 2.4 in dual compound is 800gr... a wider rekon 2.6 in 3cmaxxterra compound is 780gr... maybe they have spared on the 120tpi casing instead of the 60tpi.. but also the knobs are taller and bigger on the 2.4? more material?

Maybe Waltaz that have both tires can confirm that the tread pattern of the 2.4 is more "aggressive" than the 2.6?
I'm also interested if the shape of the two tires is more round on the 2.6 rekon instead of the 2.4... both on 30i rims...
thanks
Click to expand...
I can confirm without a doubt that the tread is more agressive on the 2.4 Rekon vs the 2.6. The tire is also "beefier", in that the rubber is thicker/heavier.

I had the 2.6's on 30i rims, also, and that profile was definitely more round, and the tread less pronounced. The 2.6's measured 2.51-2.53 for me, and I'll get the 2.4 measurements later today.

The two tires ride and feel different enough to notice and make a difference. The 2.4 is a better tire, additional weight notwithstanding.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#47 ·
richj8990 said:
I agree that the Rekon is a nice jack of all trades tire but it's not quite as good as a Minion. I don't mind it up front but I don't think it would have enough traction for me in back. Decent in a straight line, not very good cornering. BTW if you are doing better on a 2.35 than a 2.60 then you are either on easy terrain or you are a good rider! I gave up on 2.35 in the front a while ago.
Click to expand...
You think it's a good front but doesn't have enough traction for a rear?
 
#49 ·
Walt, you probably don't have much time on the new Rekons but what do you think of durability (sidewall and otherwise) of these tires for Phx riding ( think the rockiest parts of Hawes)? My rear Aggressor is about worn out and thinking of maybe ditching the DHF 2.5 WT/Aggressor combo since I think less might actually be more for Hawes/Gold Canyon/Picket Post type riding.
 
#50 ·
eatdrinkride said:
Walt, you probably don't have much time on the new Rekons but what do you think of durability (sidewall and otherwise) of these tires for Phx riding ( think the rockiest parts of Hawes)? My rear Aggressor is about worn out and thinking of maybe ditching the DHF 2.5 WT/Aggressor combo since I think less might actually be more for Hawes/Gold Canyon/Picket Post type riding.
Click to expand...
These seem tougher than the 2.6 Rekons, which I didn't have any problem with on anything, and tougher than 2.35 Ikons, which are proven over thousands and thousands of miles of nasty AZ rocks on my SS's. So I am very confident in these, and feel they will be very durable. They ate up the nasty rocky parts of South Sonoran and Mine last weekend.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Discussion starter · #51 ·
bills8 said:
Yeah I was confused by that too. I found it ok as a rear but wouldn't find it grippy enough in front.
Click to expand...
I think thats whats tough when taking other peoples opinions on tires. I typically dont even consider climbing traction as a factor for a rear tire, unless its terrible, its good enough, id take a 70% loss in climbing grip for a 5% gain in cornering grip.
But for someone else, a tire that has loads of climbing traction but has no grip in the corners might be "a grippy tire" depending on your priorities. if you never push a tire hard in corners you'd probably be find with something like a rekon in the front.
 
#52 ·
waltaz said:
These seem tougher than the 2.6 Rekons, which I didn't have any problem with on anything, and tougher than 2.35 Ikons, which are proven over thousands and thousands of miles of nasty AZ rocks on my SS's. So I am very confident in these, and feel they will be very durable. They ate up the nasty rocky parts of South Sonoran and Mine last weekend.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Thanks. I could save over 300g swapping from my current set-up (27.5 Mojo 3) and for my bike, my age and my actual riding vs. my riding memories of years past (Goat Camp/Natty/Geronimo/Holbert) I think I could get away with a bit less of a tire combo. I'll start in the rear as my DHF is half as worn as the rear Aggressor. I've come full circle to the DHF several time though, lol.
 
#53 ·
eatdrinkride said:
Thanks. I could save over 300g swapping from my current set-up (27.5 Mojo 3) and for my bike, my age and my actual riding vs. my riding memories of years past (Goat Camp/Natty/Geronimo/Holbert) I think I could get away with a bit less of a tire combo. I'll start in the rear as my DHF is half as worn as the rear Aggressor. I've come full circle to the DHF several time though, lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah, LOL, that's why I traded the Primer for the SB100...days of big, daring chunk are behind me, and I'm focused on endurance XC. No sense being overbiked just to have "in case" I go ride something...

You ought to try the 2.4 Rekons, at least in back.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#54 ·
scandy1 said:
I think thats whats tough when taking other peoples opinions on tires. I typically dont even consider climbing traction as a factor for a rear tire, unless its terrible, its good enough, id take a 70% loss in climbing grip for a 5% gain in cornering grip.
But for someone else, a tire that has loads of climbing traction but has no grip in the corners might be "a grippy tire" depending on your priorities. if you never push a tire hard in corners you'd probably be find with something like a rekon in the front.
Click to expand...
I only worry about cornering grip (and braking) on the front. I only worry about climbing traction on the back. I don't want to corner like a golden retriever on a linoleum floor, but within limits I want the rear to break free cornering before the front does, and any rear tire - that I've tried - that has decent climbing traction will corner well enough.
 
#55 ·
MSU Alum said:
I only worry about cornering grip (and braking) on the front. I only worry about climbing traction on the back. I don't want to corner like a golden retriever on a linoleum floor, but within limits I want the rear to break free cornering before the front does, and any rear tire - that I've tried - that has decent climbing traction will corner well enough.
Click to expand...
Trails must not be steep where you live. I'm very concerned about braking traction on the rear. Agreed on the rest, though.
 
#56 ·
twodownzero said:
Trails must not be steep where you live. I'm very concerned about braking traction on the rear. Agreed on the rest, though.
Click to expand...
You do understand that the steeper the trails, the more important front braking traction is, right?

Even if you're tooling along level and slam on the brakes, it's the front that does most of the stopping.

I bet you just misspoke.
Having just squeezed lemon, rather than lime, into my Moscow Mule, I can appreciate how these things can happen!
 
#57 ·
MSU Alum said:
You do understand that the steeper the trails, the more important front braking traction is, right?

Even if you're tooling along level and slam on the brakes, it's the front that does most of the stopping.

I bet you just misspoke.
Having just squeezed lemon, rather than lime, into my Moscow Mule, I can appreciate how these things can happen!
Click to expand...
Front brake certainly has more power and is important everywhere, but I can get away with less rear braking capability on smoother and less steep trails.
 
#59 ·
twodownzero said:
Front brake certainly has more power and is important everywhere, but I can get away with less rear braking capability on smoother and less steep trails.
Click to expand...
It seems that you find rear braking traction more important (than front) as terrain gets steeper. You have it exactly backwards.

On level ground, your weight is roughly equal between tires so when you apply the brakes, the rear is still effective. As it gets steeper, the weight shifts forward onto the front tire and off of the rear tire. The more level the terrain, the more effective rear braking is. The steeper the terrain, the less effective rear braking becomes and the more important effective front braking traction becomes.

Once you get steep enough, you almost can't get braking from the rear. This is a ridiculously basic concept. At some point, the force vector from your CG practically goes through the front axle...there's just not enough weight on the back tire to provide traction.

On very steep terrain, the braking capability of the front tire is more critical than the braking capability of the rear tire.
 
#60 ·
Just had my first ride with 29" a 2.4 Rekon TR EXO on the rear. Replace a 2.4 DHRII. Took it up a fairly technical climb with a lot of damp 3" -6" roots. No slippage at all. That ticks one box for me, climbing traction. It was noticably less draggy than the DHR, box 2 checked. It did slide out a bit more on loose decents, but not terrible. I will keep it on through the summer and probably go back to a dhr in the fall, if the side knobs last that long.
 
41 - 60 of 89 Posts
About this Discussion
88 Replies
34 Participants
Last post:
Novaterra
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion