Just patching up my sons bike after he trashed it again, fitted a spare tyre to replace the bald front. The rear tyre is a 2.00 and the front is now 2.1. this I don't suppose will cause any problems but it did set me thinking, what would be the effect of putting say a 1.5 on the front and a 1.75/1.9 on the rear? Would the bike handle the same but be slightly more comfortable? My bike is a rigid and I am at the age where comfort is a serious consideration.
Just patching up my sons bike after he trashed it again, fitted a spare tyre to replace the bald front. The rear tyre is a 2.00 and the front is now 2.1. this I don't suppose will cause any problems but it did set me thinking, what would be the effect of putting say a 1.5 on the front and a 1.75/1.9 on the rear? Would the bike handle the same but be slightly more comfortable? My bike is a rigid and I am at the age where comfort is a serious consideration.
There's no reason why front and rear tyres have to be matched as general handling is not affected by different widths* - each tyre doesn't "know" what the other one is. But tyres should be appropriate for the rims. Most modern MTB rims can take quite a wide range, so at least 1.5 to 2.1 will probably fit ok.
The wider the tyre, generally, the more comfort you'll get. Narrower versions of the same tyres will be be less, not more, comfortable! A wider front tyre will absorb buzz and shock better. However, a slick "road" 1.5 tyre may provide more comfort on the road than a knobbly off-road 2.1.
* Except a narrower front tyre may provide a slightly better steering "feel" (less squidging and steering may feel more precise). Traction will be reduced, though.
There's no reason why front and rear tyres have to be matched as general handling is not affected by different widths* - each tyre doesn't "know" what the other one is. But tyres should be appropriate for the rims. Most modern MTB rims can take quite a wide range, so at least 1.5 to 2.1 will probably fit ok.
The wider the tyre, generally, the more comfort you'll get. Narrower versions of the same tyres will be be less, not more, comfortable! A wider front tyre will absorb buzz and shock better. However, a slick "road" 1.5 tyre may provide more comfort on the road than a knobbly off-road 2.1.
* Except a narrower front tyre may provide a slightly better steering "feel" (less squidging and steering may feel more precise). Traction will be reduced, though.
~PB
As much as I thought, currently running 1.5 slicks, the front feels ok but as I am larger than average the back feels 'flat' compared to the 1.9 knobbly. Perhaps when these need replacing I will try the odd combination.
There was an article in one of the magazines to do with a new pair of tryes from Vittoria (I think) where the rear is fatter than the front, better for cornering at speed apparently. They talked a little about performance motor bikes where the rear is far fatter than the front. So I guess your situation will not be a problem.
"stratton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Hi
Just patching up my sons bike after he trashed it again, fitted a spare
tyre
Quoted message said:
to replace the bald front. The rear tyre is a 2.00 and the front is now
2.1.
Quoted message said:
this I don't suppose will cause any problems but it did set me thinking, what would be the effect of putting say a 1.5 on the front and a 1.75/1.9
on
Quoted message said:
the rear? Would the bike handle the same but be slightly more comfortable? My bike is a rigid and I am at the age where comfort is a serious consideration.
"M Series" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
There was an article in one of the magazines to do with a new pair of tryes from Vittoria (I think) where the rear is fatter than the front, better for cornering at speed apparently. They talked a little about performance motor bikes where the rear is far fatter than the front. So I guess your situation will not be a problem.
Vittoria may well do something along these lines, though the version I'm aware of is from Continental in the shape of the Attack (front-specific)/Force (rear-specific) pairing.
There was an article in one of the magazines to do with a new pair of tryes from Vittoria (I think) where the rear is fatter than the front, better for cornering at speed apparently.
Schwalbe have recently introduced a tyre combo along these lines - the Stelvio Evolution Pack. Same width front and rear but different tread compounds. Only available in 23-622, chiz, me want a 406/559 version...
You are correct it was Conti that I was thinking of
"David E. Belcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"M Series" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
There was an article in one of the magazines to do with a new pair of
tryes
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
from Vittoria (I think) where the rear is fatter than the front, better
for
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
cornering at speed apparently. They talked a little about performance
motor
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
bikes where the rear is far fatter than the front. So I guess your
situation
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
will not be a problem.
Vittoria may well do something along these lines, though the version I'm aware of is from Continental in the shape of the Attack (front-specific)/Force (rear-specific) pairing.
There was an article in one of the magazines to do with a new pair of tryes from Vittoria (I think) where the rear is fatter than the front, better for cornering at speed apparently.
Schwalbe have recently introduced a tyre combo along these lines - the Stelvio Evolution Pack. Same width front and rear but different tread compounds. Only available in 23-622, chiz, me want a 406/559 version...