Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a 2008 SJ FSR Comp, which has the DT Swiss 420 SL wheels. Are 2.35 width tires too wide for these wheels? If so, what is the widest that these wheels will accept? Thanks in advance...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
No. I'm was running 2.35 Nevegals on mine for a while. I went back to a 2.1 in the rear, though. I don't think there is enough clearance for anything much bigger, but there might be.

I did have to play with the front dr. a lot to get it to not rub on the tread in the small ring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
How is the 2.35 front/2.1 rear setup with Nevegals treating you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
It's good. Honestly I can't tell much of a difference between it and when I had the 2.35 on the rear as well. Maybe it's faster because of the reduced weight? I'm riding in the pac nw where we have a lot of wet roots and conditions can really vary between bone dry and extremely wet sloppy stuff in a few hundred yards. The big difference is that it's much better than The Captain tires for the conditions out here. I'm using my The Captains as around the town tires on another bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
im runnin a 2.35 nevegal up front also. you could probably do a 2.4 but i dont think a 2.5 (but why would you want a 2.5 on a trailbike anyways?). In the back im runnin a 2.24 mutano raptor with plenty of clearance, could probably go 2.4 also in the back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
tyre size front vs rear

JMUSuperman said:
It's good. Honestly I can't tell much of a difference between it and when I had the 2.35 on the rear as well. Maybe it's faster because of the reduced weight? I'm riding in the pac nw where we have a lot of wet roots and conditions can really vary between bone dry and extremely wet sloppy stuff in a few hundred yards. The big difference is that it's much better than The Captain tires for the conditions out here. I'm using my The Captains as around the town tires on another bike.
I have a dumb question - what is the theory behind running larger tyres on the front and smaller on the back? I only have ever had pinch flats on the back and the main reason I like the bigger bag is to lessen the chance of pinch flats. What difference does the big tyre on the front make to handling?
 

·
UF Engineering Slave
Joined
·
370 Posts
JMUSuperman said:
Since the front tire does most of the turning and uses the tread out of the side the most (in theory)
No.

reasons to run a smaller rear tire:

1. Usually the frame has less clearance than the fork, so a bigger tire just doesn't fit in the back
2. Many people prefer the back end to have less traction than the front, so it breaks lose first (its easier to save a back end slide than a front end wash out)
3. To save weight
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
The theory is that a smaller rear tire weighs less than a larger one. Since the front tire does most of the turning and uses the tread out of the side the most (in theory), having a smaller rear tire gives you lightweight combined with better handling. In theory.

Having said that: I can't tell a huge difference, personally. I also run my wheels with Stan's so I haven't had a pinch, or any other type, of flat in a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
HandyMan said:
No.

reasons to run a smaller rear tire:

1. Usually the frame has less clearance than the fork, so a bigger tire just doesn't fit in the back
2. Many people prefer the back end to have less traction than the front, so it breaks lose first (its easier to save a back end slide than a front end wash out)
3. To save weight
Thanks JMUSuperman and HandyMan. HandyMan your point 2 (better traction required up front) is actually quite consistent with JMUSuperman's observation that the front "uses the tread out of the side the most".
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top