Does anyone ride with different sized front & rear tyres on their bikes.

I'm just about to have a crack @ Ghetto tubeless, I use a 2.35" eXCeption Ignitor on the front and either a 2.35" eXCeption or a 2.1" non-eXCeption Ignitor on the rear and can't really make my mind up which is better.

Just wonering if there are any pros/cons to using a smaller width tyre on the rear.

Also do people run tyres with less tread on the rear, i.e. a Highroller Maxxpro on the front and a Larsen TT on the rear? I've also considered this, but how does a Larsen cope with wet trails?

Singlespeed = 2.35 BG front, 2.1 HR back
Fullsuss = 2.35 BG front, 2.1 SMB8 back

Can cope with a wild back end (I run the above all year round) as long as the front is good and whether it's real or psychological, a draggy tire always feels twice as bad on the back as it does on the front.

The singlespeed is a steel Genesis and it's so comfy I don't feel the need for anything big on back for comfort reasons anyway.

Is this kind of thing what you had in mind – 2.5 Nevegal on the front, 2.1 Small Block 8 on the back.

In that case yes. The grip on grippy stuff is about the same both ends, the SB8 rolls better and thereby reduces the overall tyre drag, and when grip gets sketchy the back goes first – which I can control better than the front going.

Overall fairly grippy, fairly fast and very predictable.

Edit – Just read GL's post – seems I'm not the only one.

2.5" seems a bit on the huge size to go with a 2.1" on the rear

Interesting. I was wondering about this having seen one of the bikes in the recent mag Ti test running a SB8 on the back and something different on the front.
I've been using SB8 front and back on my 456 since the spring and I love them for the dry grip and fast rolling, but I know that once it starts getting too muddy the front end will be all over the place.
So I was wondering about putting a Mud-X (which are my usual winter tyres) on the front for some steering and leaving the SB8 on the back for a while. Think I'll give it a try.

steve_b77 – Member
2.5" seems a bit on the huge size to go with a 2.1" on the rear

Yes it does when you write it down but it works and doesn't look that odd on the bike. Actually I've got some 2.35 Nevegals as well aand that was what I thought I was running until someone asked me on Saturday and I checked.

Back when I started riding it was almost universal that bikes had a 1.9 rear and a 2.1 front. Thats how I roll now!

Back in the day! Kona used to fit its bikes with a larger tyre on the front than on the back. If memory serves me correctly it was something like a 2.1 and a 1.9. The idea was that as we all rode rigid forks in those days the extra cushioning on the front was useful.

Yep, in the old days I'd ride my rigid with the classic 2.1 Dart Front and 1.9 Smoke rear combo!
Also – I think the principle of a bigger volume tyre floating better in mud (stopping nose dives) and the smaller volume narrower back cutting in and providing more drive traction was part of the reasoning?
All that said – I now ride 2.3 Vertical Pros front and back, I love this set up and I don't miss the old skool at all!

Yeah either 2.25 Ardent or 2.35 high roller front
and 2.1 crossmark or 2.1 advantage rear

Depending on how I feel, but always slightly skinnier and faster on the back.

i go bigger and grippier on the front, smaller and balder on the back.

May end up with a 2.2 Jones XR on the back and a 2.0 Mud X on the front as the XR is a bit sketchy and only have Mud X as an alternative. For Ruthin marathon anyway. Just seems wrong though. May end up Mud X on both…