Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Trying to decide on a new F/R tire combo, for all around pretty aggressive trail riding might see a tiny bit of bike park. But since its going on my "light" bike, i want to try and keep it reasonably light and fast rolling.

I'll probably end up with a DHF or DHR front. So trying to figure out a rear. Mostly looking at the 2.4 EXO+ 3C Rekon, maybe a 2.6 depending on real world size. and i'd consider running an insert.

Ive ridden the 2.3 and 2.5 Aggressor, the 2.5 I thought rolled noticeably slower than the 2.3. the 2.3 seemed to have about the same cornering grip but a little more "pingy" and less supple, the 2.5 even felt a bit less supple or harsh compared to other maxxis tires. overall though I think its a good all around compromise rear tire.

Just wondering how the rekon would compare, I like that i could get a bit higher volume 2.4 or 2.6, hopefully get back some of that suppleness. and its a bit lower weight. I'd like to have a similar grip limit to the Aggressor, if its much less i want it to at least be predictable. im typically ok with a drifty rear so long as its slow and predictable, i actually prefer a slight drift rather than the rear being completely locked in.

Should rolling resistance be better? I was never really impressed with the climbing/braking grip of the aggressor considering how it rolled. I'd rather sacrifice a smidge more braking/climbing grip for a noticeable increase in rolling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
The aggressor is a pig when it comes to rolling resistance. We both have them on our bikes. The 29 and 27.5 versions. They are just slow and heavy. I've never tried a recon, but I've been told they are a lot better. I do feel the recon for the little heavy for its design.

if you have the clearance for a McFly, they run small, I highly recommend that. It's a grippy and fast rolling tire. The drift is very predictable and controllable. I have never had an issue with squirming under heavy braking.

I have not done this, however the bontrager xr4 in supposed to be good we rear tired. I run them in the front and they are surprisingly fast for a lug tire.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The aggressor is a pig when it comes to rolling resistance. We both have them on our bikes. The 29 and 27.5 versions. They are just slow and heavy. I've never tried a recon, but I've been told they are a lot better. I do feel the recon for the little heavy for its design.

if you have the clearance for a McFly, they run small, I highly recommend that. It's a grippy and fast rolling tire. The drift is very predictable and controllable. I have never had an issue with squirming under heavy braking.

I have not done this, however the bontrager xr4 in supposed to be good we rear tired. I run them in the front and they are surprisingly fast for a lug tire.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk
Yeah ive been looking at doing the XR5 front XR4 rear combo as well, seems extremely close to a DHF/Rekon combo.

Just looking at the tread pattern I think I like the Rekon more, the side lugs look more along the lines of what I've liked in the past. thats not to say the XR4 isnt as good or better. IF someone were to compare both and say the XR4 has better bite in the corners i'd go that direction.
Both the rekon and the XR4 seem like a pretty round profile, XR4 maybe more so?

McFly looks interesting but maybe too high volume? I typically dont like plus tires, especially in the rear, it always feels like im gonna roll the tire off the bead in corners.

Weight honestly isnt a concern when they're around 900 grams or less. After that i'm not looking for whats lightest, when i see some of these tires down in the 700 gram range i just feel like I'll shred them in 2 rides. the only benefit is if I were to get a real light tire, I'd run a cush core all the time. if i'm looking at a 900 gram tire, cushcore turns that into a heavy tire combo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,564 Posts
I just replaced a 2.35 E13 Semi-slick with a 2.5 Aggressor and did not notice an increase in rolling resistance. I just replaced my 2.35 Magic Mary with a 2.5 Assegai up front and the Assegai/Aggressor combo absolutely rips on the descents:).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,613 Posts
I have the 29x2.6 Rekons (EXO, 3c, etc) and have run them front and back. I haven't ridden other sizes, though. The 2.6 Rekon, I thought did nothing particularly well. On the rear it doesn't have much traction climbing and not much grip braking. I didn't think it rolled particularly quickly either.

My climb times on a 29x2.5 Aggressor are actually slightly faster than on the Rekon, riding in the Wasatch. If you are interested in buff trails, it would be okay, but for that, I've found the Nobby Nic in a 2.35 Addix does everything better....more traction, more grip, better cornering and based on my climb times, rolls better as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I have the 29x2.6 Rekons (EXO, 3c, etc) and have run them front and back. I haven't ridden other sizes, though. The 2.6 Rekon, I thought did nothing particularly well. On the rear it doesn't have much traction climbing and not much grip braking. I didn't think it rolled particularly quickly either.

My climb times on a 29x2.5 Aggressor are actually slightly faster than on the Rekon, riding in the Wasatch. If you are interested in buff trails, it would be okay, but for that, I've found the Nobby Nic in a 2.35 Addix does everything better....more traction, more grip, better cornering and based on my climb times, rolls better as well.
Anything in particular you didn't like? Or they just didn't do anything stand out great?
I'm considering the 2.6, but real interested in the 2.4 3c that comes in exo+.

I'm riding mostly dry, dusty/small gravel over hardpack and loose dirt. Even focusing purely on speed on the descents, a lot of our DH trails aren't very steep, just techy. So running a very draggy tire means a lot of pedaling between corners to hold speed. Fast rolling tires let you get through the corner and get a stroke or two in and pick up a lot more speed. Braking and climbing grip just needs to be ok, rolling speed and cornering grip are the biggest priority.
ive run some semi slicks, they're close to ideal, but they just don't hold a line as well through lines that have a lot of awkward off camber bits and stuff that try's to force the rear tire to slide suddenly.

The 2.3 aggressor did that pretty well, just a little small volume for the weight, I'd like more of the damp smooth rolling of a slightly higher volume tire. Something about aggressors just seemed so abnormally harsh for some reason. I feel like if the aggressor came in a 2.4 and didn't have that harsh feel it'd be my perfect rear tire, cornering grip doesn't seem to be any worse than a DHR except maybe really sketchy off camber type stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I just replaced a 2.35 E13 Semi-slick with a 2.5 Aggressor and did not notice an increase in rolling resistance. I just replaced my 2.35 Magic Mary with a 2.5 Assegai up front and the Assegai/Aggressor combo absolutely rips on the descents:).
I ran a e13 trs front and aggressor 2.5 rear, that was honestly one of my favorite combos, on my 160 travel enduro bike. But that's just a bit too draggy for my new bike, I'm kinda forcing myself to not go overboard on tires.. ill go with a 1000 gram-ish front, but I'd really like to keep it light and snappy for the rear.

i switched to trs front trs SS rear, id say it rolled a tiny bit better, but I think what hurt its rolling resistance was the square profile, I think the side lugs touch with any lean at all. Could be much faster on a narrower rim. In terms of descending its the best semi slick I've ridden, such a good tire, I just didn't get the rolling benefit I was hoping for.

if E13 made their trs a tad better rolling in the center tread which had excessive grip, and came out with a 800-900 gram aggressor competitor I'd probably just stick with e13s forever. Their tires are the only ones I've thought were easily better than maxxis. Just not if speed on flats and rolling resistance are a priority.
 

·
Robertson
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Yeah ive been looking at doing the XR5 front XR4 rear combo as well, seems extremely close to a DHF/Rekon combo.

Just looking at the tread pattern I think I like the Rekon more, the side lugs look more along the lines of what I've liked in the past. thats not to say the XR4 isnt as good or better. IF someone were to compare both and say the XR4 has better bite in the corners i'd go that direction.
Both the rekon and the XR4 seem like a pretty round profile, XR4 maybe more so?

McFly looks interesting but maybe too high volume? I typically dont like plus tires, especially in the rear, it always feels like im gonna roll the tire off the bead in corners.

Weight honestly isnt a concern when they're around 900 grams or less. After that i'm not looking for whats lightest, when i see some of these tires down in the 700 gram range i just feel like I'll shred them in 2 rides. the only benefit is if I were to get a real light tire, I'd run a cush core all the time. if i'm looking at a 900 gram tire, cushcore turns that into a heavy tire combo.
I've run aggressor, rekon, SE4 (XR4 with a tougher casing and slightly more grippy rubber) in the rear. Rekon is lightest, fastest rolling, least amount of grip. Aggressor (both exo and DD) is heaviest, slowest rolling, most cornering grip (in 2.5, less in 2.3). The SE4 is a gem, lighter than even the exo Aggressor but almost as tough as the DD, faster rolling, has just a touch less cornering grip than the 2.5 aggressor but more than the 2.3 aggressor. Definitely worth a look.
 

·
No Clue Crew
Joined
·
7,648 Posts
I agree with ^^ regarding the SE4. Really excellent rear tire. I'm due for a new one and was commenting on a ride this weekend that it's the first tire I've worn out before I destroyed the casing (riding in Phoenix).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,921 Posts
I went from a 2.3 Aggressor to a 2.6 Rekon on my hardtail and thought the Rekon was noticeably faster rolling but also less grip. However, I wouldn't want to run it at a bike park unless the terrain is really mellow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
I've got a few rides in on the Rekon 2.4 DC on the back and for pedally stuff this tire seems to be magical for me. I really think it has a lot to do with the way I ride and the average speed I am riding. I've got vast experience on the 2.4DHR2 and the 2.5 Aggressor back there and it is what it is....lighter, faster, with some grip given up. I really didn't buy this tire to run park, but it will be tested at a mellow park this weekend coming up. I am sure I'll need to add air for support and it wont be perfect, but we'll see how it holds up. So far for pedaling, it is my new favorite. FYI...running 2.5 DHF up front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I've run aggressor, rekon, SE4 (XR4 with a tougher casing and slightly more grippy rubber) in the rear. Rekon is lightest, fastest rolling, least amount of grip. Aggressor (both exo and DD) is heaviest, slowest rolling, most cornering grip (in 2.5, less in 2.3). The SE4 is a gem, lighter than even the exo Aggressor but almost as tough as the DD, faster rolling, has just a touch less cornering grip than the 2.5 aggressor but more than the 2.3 aggressor. Definitely worth a look.
man you might have sold me, I think a 2.6 XR5 front, 2.4 XR4 rear would be a sweet combo. (apparently the XR and SE tires have the same tread compound? according to Bontragers sight) Both tires are damn light, about as light as i'd want to run, and reviews say both have good rolling resistance.

I'm still surprised the XR4/SE4 is as grippy as you say, visually it doesnt click with my as a hard cornering tire, but i must be wrong..

Might be worth buying both the bontrager and maxxis combo and trying both since i can always throw the DHF on my enduro bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I should mention I could never fall in love with the aggressor. The 2.3 is too narrow, and the 2.5 was really too wide for my frame. The 2.5 was a slog overall and really just did everything ok....so I went back to the DHR2 at the time. For what it is, it just seems super heavy as well. If there were a 2.4 version, I think I could fall in love a bit more potentially. I have the 2.5 sitting in the garage with very minimal wear and would send it to you super cheap if you have interest. Ping me if you want a good trial tire. LOL
I think youve got the same problems i had when trying the aggressor. its so close to being a great tire, i think a 2.4 in 3c and with a sidewall that feels as supple as every other maxxis ive run could be perfect.

how are you liking the rekon for cornering specifically? im wondering if most the reviews i read being a for a 2.6 are why people knock its cornering. ive never liked something that big in the rear especially if the cornering knobs arent minion style meaty, seems like you need the slightly lower volume to get the tire to "slice" into the dirt like you'd want.

even though i think the bontrager combo is looking like the winner, i really wanna try the 2.4 exo+ 3c rekon. at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
I'm running a 2.6" XR5 up front with a 2.4" SE4 out back on my Ripley V4. Just did almost 70 miles in Pisgah and Dupont etc in western NC on this combo and they handled everything exceptionally well. The bike feels noticeably more spry going up long climbs - the 2.5" DHF and Aggressor I previously ran felt like boat anchors in comparison. The XR5 up front is very rounded with no intermediate knobs so very little rolling resistance but hooks up like crazy in fast corners. Zero punctures or issues, Bontrager is killing it with their tire lineup IMO.
 

·
gravity curmudgeon
Joined
·
1,502 Posts
I'm running a 2.6" XR5 up front with a 2.4" SE4 out back on my Ripley V4. Just did almost 70 miles in Pisgah and Dupont etc in western NC on this combo and they handled everything exceptionally well. The bike feels noticeably more spry going up long climbs - the 2.5" DHF and Aggressor I previously ran felt like boat anchors in comparison. The XR5 up front is very rounded with no intermediate knobs so very little rolling resistance but hooks up like crazy in fast corners. Zero punctures or issues, Bontrager is killing it with their tire lineup IMO.
That sounds like an interesting setup. Any thoughts on those tires in drier conditions with plenty of rocks, loose over firm?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
I am mixed about the Aggressor. I do not find it particularly fast or particularly grippy, it is however ridiculously durable.

I only have experience with the Recon's in the 2.25 XC version. They do work well in that application, but they do not seem to have a particularly long life span.
 

·
No Clue Crew
Joined
·
7,648 Posts
The XR4 and SE4 are the same tread pattern, with the SE being the more durable, tougher tire. I wouldn't personally run an XR in the rear, but I'm in Phoenix, which is brutal on tires. I still run a Maxxis front, either DHF or DHR II. I do occasionally run a Conti Trail King up front, which is a nice combo with the Bontrager rear.
 

·
No Clue Crew
Joined
·
7,648 Posts
And, not to turn this into an Aggressor bashfest, but I've had no luck with it. I really WANT to like it, but it just doesn't perform for me in our terrain.

Honestly, I liked the 2.3 much better, but it's pretty narrow with no volume. The 2.5WT doesn't seem to pedal well AND it isn't super-grippy. I'd take a DHRII in the rear anyday over an Aggressor.
 
1 - 20 of 89 Posts
Top