STR | SocalTrailRiders.org

Permagrin · 07-20-2007, 12:51 PM

There's probably an obvious answer for this but I'm going to take my chances and show my blond roots anyways.

I have a GT Avalanche and just recently noticed that I have 1.95 on the rear and 2.10 on the front. I know it's close but why the difference in sizes? Are all mtb's factory like this or did I get a something I shouldn't have?

tkblazer · 07-20-2007, 01:04 PM

most people run a larger/wider front tire for more grip and a smaller rear tire for quicker accelleration. you can run the same size front and back with no ill effects as well.

project_d · 07-20-2007, 03:12 PM

Yeah, what TK said. I run a 2.5 up front and a 2.35 in back. I like the meatier tire for more grip. Depending on what trails you ride, you may want to go for either the same size tire up front, or a larger tire. Most bikes are sold with the same size tire front & back.

allison · 07-20-2007, 03:27 PM

If you get into some more difficult riding you may want to get slightly bigger tires. I liked using Specialized Resolution/Adrenaline's, and am a big fan of Kenda Nevegal's. I've got 2.35's on my all mountain bike, and 2.1's on my singlespeed.

mytrustysteed · 07-20-2007, 03:33 PM

I run the WTB Mutano Raptor 2.24 up front and Panaracer Fire 1.95 in back. Wider up front gives you a little more control on the downhill.

FyrFytrRyn · 07-20-2007, 03:56 PM

personal preference really. i run a 2.8''s on the DH, 2.4''s on the xc and 35c on the road, i like big tires.

Permagrin · 07-20-2007, 06:34 PM

Ok, so bigger up front is better, eh? *he he*

Thanks for the info - looks like I have some reading to do for my next purchase. There's always a 'next purchase', isn't there?

Blue Rat · 07-20-2007, 07:45 PM

I run the Kenda Negavals for both tires ... a 2.35 on the front and a 1.95 on the rear.

project_d · 07-20-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Permagrin

Ok, so bigger up front is better, eh? *he he*

Yeah, you'll fit right in, here

Neccros · 07-20-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Permagrin

There's probably an obvious answer for this but I'm going to take my chances and show my blond roots anyways.

I have a GT Avalanche and just recently noticed that I have 1.95 on the rear and 2.10 on the front. I know it's close but why the difference in sizes? Are all mtb's factory like this or did I get a something I shouldn't have?

Did you buy the bike used or new?

Permagrin · 07-21-2007, 04:22 PM

Neccros - I bought it new in Feb but I think it's an '06, which is fine with me. I wanted an entry level HT that I could beat up and see if I really liked to mtb and I think I've gotten my money's worth so far and my answer

.

Neccros · 07-21-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Permagrin

Neccros - I bought it new in Feb but I think it's an '06, which is fine with me. I wanted an entry level HT that I could beat up and see if I really liked to mtb and I think I've gotten my money's worth so far and my answer

.

Ok... I was thinking if it was used, whoever owned it just threw any tires on it and that would explain the differences, but since it was new, it seems kinda odd that the smaller tie was in front.

dstepper · 07-21-2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Permagrin

Ok, so bigger up front is better, eh? *he he*

OK I can't leave this one alone.

If CC can be the VP of kickstand inspection. I would like to nominate myself for VP of "is bigger up front better"!

Respectfully Yours,

Dean

2wheel_lee · 07-21-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Permagrin

I have a GT Avalanche and just recently noticed that I have 1.95 on the rear and 2.10 on the front.

Neccros, they have the correct size tires in the right spot. That's a common setup that works very well for XC use.

Neccros · 07-21-2007, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

Neccros, they have the correct size tires in the right spot. That's a common setup that works very well for XC use.

Ok.... some dumb reason I thought the 1.9 was in front and the 2.1 was in the rear....

Sheesh time for bed.... I cant think straight

07-20-2007, 12:51 PM	#1 (permalink)
Permagrin STR Veteran	Different Tire Sizes There's probably an obvious answer for this but I'm going to take my chances and show my blond roots anyways. I have a GT Avalanche and just recently noticed that I have 1.95 on the rear and 2.10 on the front. I know it's close but why the difference in sizes? Are all mtb's factory like this or did I get a something I shouldn't have? __________________ Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself. - James A. Froude (1818-1894)

07-20-2007, 01:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
tkblazer Ruining It For The 95%	most people run a larger/wider front tire for more grip and a smaller rear tire for quicker accelleration. you can run the same size front and back with no ill effects as well. __________________ Geronimo: I think I could probably spend all day exporing Dell Painfreak: Dstepper turned me on

07-20-2007, 03:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
allison Gone ridin'	If you get into some more difficult riding you may want to get slightly bigger tires. I liked using Specialized Resolution/Adrenaline's, and am a big fan of Kenda Nevegal's. I've got 2.35's on my all mountain bike, and 2.1's on my singlespeed. __________________

07-20-2007, 03:33 PM	#5 (permalink)
mytrustysteed Senior Member	I run the WTB Mutano Raptor 2.24 up front and Panaracer Fire 1.95 in back. Wider up front gives you a little more control on the downhill. __________________ WWJH....Who Would Jesus Hate?

07-20-2007, 03:56 PM	#6 (permalink)
FyrFytrRyn PORKCHOP SANDWICHES!	personal preference really. i run a 2.8''s on the DH, 2.4''s on the xc and 35c on the road, i like big tires. __________________ Don't do anything by half. If you love someone, love them with all your soul. When you go to work, work your ass off. When you hate someone, hate them until it hurts.

07-20-2007, 03:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
project_d Steve Peat Wannabe	Yeah, what TK said. I run a 2.5 up front and a 2.35 in back. I like the meatier tire for more grip. Depending on what trails you ride, you may want to go for either the same size tire up front, or a larger tire. Most bikes are sold with the same size tire front & back.

07-20-2007, 06:34 PM	#7 (permalink)
Permagrin STR Veteran	Ok, so bigger up front is better, eh? he he Thanks for the info - looks like I have some reading to do for my next purchase. There's always a 'next purchase', isn't there? __________________ Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself. - James A. Froude (1818-1894)

07-20-2007, 07:45 PM	#8 (permalink)
Blue Rat F.O.G.R.	I run the Kenda Negavals for both tires ... a 2.35 on the front and a 1.95 on the rear. __________________ "He's soft and he's fat and he's wearing my clothes and he's getting too old and he was born on my birthday and I'm afraid if I stop riding, he'll catch up with me." I. E. Bikes

07-21-2007, 04:22 PM	#11 (permalink)
Permagrin STR Veteran	Neccros - I bought it new in Feb but I think it's an '06, which is fine with me. I wanted an entry level HT that I could beat up and see if I really liked to mtb and I think I've gotten my money's worth so far and my answer . __________________ Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself. - James A. Froude (1818-1894)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nevegal Tire Knobs coming off	Sprockethead	The Workshop	24	05-02-2008 05:12 PM
Dumb tire question	mytrustysteed	The Workshop	8	01-01-2007 11:41 AM
29'er tire compatibility question	EndoMaster	The Workshop	8	05-10-2006 09:01 AM
Fruita Fat Tire Festival-April '06	Buzzsaw	Trailhead	1	03-21-2006 11:11 PM
Attn Rubber Gurus! Find me a tire!?	Pho'dUp	General Discussion	8	06-24-2005 11:07 AM

STR | SocalTrailRiders.org

Your Southern CaliforniaMountain Biking Community

Your Southern California
Mountain Biking Community