do they come up rather large for a 2.4.

they are going on an orange 5 tar!

Absolutely massive.

I’ve got a set of 2.25s and they’re way bigger than the 2.35 High Rollers I’ve got on my other bike by a long way. Better to go for the 2.25s on a Five I reckon.

I’ve got the 2.1’s on my HT and they are certainly a lot bigger than I expected, great tyre too!!

I run 2.25 Advantages on my ’05 Orange five – they can buzz the front mech in the granny ring without careful set-up. The 2.4s are really big, I cannot see how they would fit.

You could always go 2.4 up front and a 2.25 on the rear?

cheers tar 2.4 –2.25 sounds good. its a bugger that manufacturers differ so much in size.

i had scwalbe bigbettys on before i they were to big but were huge for a 2.4

The 2.4 is a much heavier tyre than the 2.25, if that’s important to you. I was running 2.25s front and rear for about a year – they’re excellent, lots of grip for such a quick tyre. I’ve had 2.25s that weighed as little as 640g, but typically they’re about the quoted 660g. The 2.4 is quoted (I think) at another 200g – quite a weighty lump of rubber.

Hi
I bought a pair of 2.4s to go on my Trance when I was “beefing” it up so to speak. I couldn’t get the rear one in the frame when it was blown up. Putting it in flat then blowing it up leaves eff all clearance.
I am running a 2.4 front and 2.25 rear but even then the front one will “buzz” the neoprene fork guard thingy from time to time (on a set of Pikes) Not only is it a wide tyre it is very tall-much more so than the 2.25.
I wouldn’t buy them again for that reason only.
Cheers
Steve

The weird thing about the sizing is that as already stated Maaxis aren’t even consitent between tyres

Weirder still the actual size is moulded on the side in mm’s. Its like the endgineer sats we’ve made 53mm tyre. The marketing say we’ll call it a 2.35 thats like a way cool size…