[druthomas]

I have been on 26 xking 2.2's for a while now. I use them for trail and local club racing. I like them but am wondering if could expect any performance gains with the 2.4's? 6'1 240#er here!
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dawgprimo]

I am 6' 7" and #245.
I ride both Xc and freeride and prefer 2.4.
Gives me a wider track and has more volume but they are a bit heavier compared to a 2.2.

 

[druthomas]

Cool, I was wondering if the traction increase out-weighed the weight penalty.

 

[jeffj]

I'd try a 2.4" up front and leave the rear at 2.2". See how you like that.

 

[Locool]

Cool, I was wondering if the traction increase out-weighed the weight penalty.

The Conti X-kings 2.2 26s are on the small side IME of the 2.2 range. They are light also but I've had better performance out of larger volume 2.2s. I'm running the Conti Trail king 2.2 up front (large volume for a 2.2) and Geax Saguaro 2.2 TNT on the rear. Both are larger volume and size than the X-Kings. This set-up is working well for me for the aggressive XC riding I do in rocky, ledgy terrain. We are about the same weight and I'll try the x-kings again when I get to that 225# mark
I haven't tried the 2.4s yet. The weight and rolling resistance have kept me away.

 

[askibum02]

I just bought a set of 2.2 Trail Kings. I'll come back once I ride on them and get a true impression.


Sent from my iPad while drinking the kool aid.

 

[druthomas]

Awesome!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[Jmf003]

Well, for what it's worth, I go the opposite direction and use narrower and lighter tires for better acceleration and hill climbing.

I'm a 235 lb Clyde running 2.25" Racing Ralphs and 1.9" Kenda Karmas. I save the more expensive RR's for races and trail-only rides and use the less expensive KK's when I ride to the trailhead on pavement.

Trails around here are mostly soil, with lots of clay near home and lots of sand on the west side of the state, which is Michigan.

Hope that helps....

 

[Petti the Yeti]

I've always liked bigger tires. Been running 2.5's on my bikes for the last several frames.

 

[druthomas]

Thanks guys!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[Alias530]

I had 29x2.2 X-Kings on my XC bike and they were awful unless you were talking about strictly flat/hardpack terrain. Anything steep they were downright scary. I'd use them as a rear tire but never again as a front. 6'6" 240 btw

 

[druthomas]

On my 26 xc rig 2.2 xkings have been great. I ended up buying new 2.2 race specs.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[-Todd-]

Fatter tires give better options for tire pressures to suit the terrain. Fat tires, aired down to grip are easier on rims as opposed to skinnies soft. Never damaged a wheel going soft with a 2.3" tire. 2.1s don't have enough volume. If you're tubed, the pinch flats get pretty annoying too...

 

[trmn8er]

I have gone from running 2.3/2.1" 26 combination to 2.0/2.0" 29er due to a recent bike change, and feel I could use a bit more up front traction wise. I always run tubeless setup. I am 6"2 and 215 lbs and probably will go 29 2.2" front and keep the Fastrak 2.0" in the rear. Here in So-Cal, we have a LOT of loose over hard-pack, and traction is essential on the exposed areas I like to ride.

 

[singletrackmack]

I've always liked bigger tires. Been running 2.5's on my bikes for the last several frames.

Me too. At 235lbs I am more concerned about contact patch, rim dings and pinch flats than a couple hundred grams even if it is on the wheels.

Fatter tires give better options for tire pressures to suit the terrain. Fat tires, aired down to grip are easier on rims as opposed to skinnies soft. Never damaged a wheel going soft with a 2.3" tire. 2.1s don't have enough volume. If you're tubed, the pinch flats get pretty annoying too...

The larger tires, like high volume 2.5" also give the wheels larger diameter for better rollover and a bigger contact patch.

On a 26" wheel, high volume 2.5" tires gives 27" of wheel diameter or more depending on the brand/model tire. This is close to the same diameter of a 650b wheel running a 2.2" tire, but has a bigger contact patch and can run lower psi, so the traction will be better. The 26" 2.5" tire may weigh a little more than the 650b 2.2", but the 26" wheel will weigh less and is stiffer than the 650b wheel so the overall weight is similar, but the performance will be better with the 26" running 2.5". As far as I know, no one makes a 2.5" 650b tire.

IMO, for a clyde, running high volume wide tires like some 2.5s on a 26" wheels is the way to go, especially for rough AM riding.

 

[druthomas]

Interesting, thanks for all of the replies. I think I am gonna stick to the 2.2s but I might try 2.5s at some point.

Sent from my Amazon Otter using Tapatalk