Looking at getting a single ply folding exo 60a HR2, but worried about going 2.4 on a long travel (150mm front, 140mm rear) trail bike.
Majority if my riding is north and south downs, with a spot of trail centre fun. I’ve recently acquired a 2.4 black chilli rubber queen, but that’s huuuuuuge, and I’ve always been a maxxis man.
Just but worried the 2.4 HR2 will be but much. What’s the opinion of the masses?

I’ve had a HR2 on the back of my Five for the majority of the winter (apart from for real gloopy spells where proper mud tyres were on) it’s teamed with a black chilli 2.3 Baron up front, if the dry spell continues i’ll put the HR2 up front and a 2.3 Larsen out back. Very good tyre the HR2. I ride everything from xc singletrack to full on DH on my bike so do tend to play about with tyre set up quite a bit but i’ve stuck with my current combo longer than any other.

if the hr2.4 are too big and heavy, stick with 60a hr1, much lighter.

IME the HR2 is much closer to the stated width than the 2.35 original High Rollers, which always came up a bit small. I currently have a 2.4 HR2 front and (nominally) 2.35 HR rear on a Cotic Soul and it’s quite a nice balance. Yes the HR2’s slightly draggier but not massively, and if you’re lugging plenty of travel around already the difference will probably be marginal so you might as well enjoy the downhills.

I have just rebuilt my 160F/150R all rounder bike for the summer. I too use it for pretty much all my riding, trail centres, odd uplift day etc. I went with a HR2 2.4 Exo on the front, running tubeless on flows, paired with a 2.25 LUST crossmark on the rear. I switched to this combo from HR1 2.35’s front and rear, which I couldnt live with tubeless due to the thin sidewalls (I am 100kg kitted up though). When I first inflated them I was worried as the HR2 did look big (although I had just spent 3 weeks riding my hardtail with 2.1 RR’s). First ride out at the weekend I was pretty impressed, gripped well, bigger volume felt better over rocky sections than the HR1’s and sidewalls held up well in corners. I think a HR2 running tubeless would be a similar weight to a HR1 + tube, so didnt feel that they were any harder to spin up. I probably wouldnt run one on the rear too though, personally I think something faster rolling is working better, and there wouldnt be much clearance on my frame.

Intrigued with Matt007 not being able to live with HR1’s tubeless due to the sidewalls… I’m just shy of 100kg without my trail riding gear and have never had any probs running HR1’s tubeless on flows at around 30-35psi?
But HR2’s do look and sound like a very good FR choice 🙂

I ran my HR1’s at similar pressures to you Graham, but I found they didnt give me any confidence over rougher ground, I felt like I could feel them squirming around a bit if you get what I mean. It was more the rear tyre that bothered me though.

I suppose its a personal thing like a lot of bike kit. My riding style is the take my time on the ups, be as quick as I can on the downs variety. I wouldnt call it FR, I dont do anything you wouldnt find on a trail centre red or black.

I’ve got some HR2s 2.4 60a EXO on my SC Butcher, tubeless on Flows, these replaced the 60a/40a HR1 combo. They are heavier but I didn’t notice, they are wider but not massively and so far I’m impressed with the grip! Haven’t noticed they roll any worse/better than the originals but feel more confident ith the stronger sidewalls running about 30 psi in mine.