But what do you run in the back to complement it??

For my Heckler..

mountain king

rubber queen 2.4 on the front, 2.2 on the back

RQ 2.4 front. Tried RQ 2.2 rear which was fine during the summer – but then it holed on rocks. Went to HR 2.3 rear which seems quite good – perhaps more robust, rolls a bit better, definitely more grip in winter conditions. Have not gone back to the RQ rear now its repaired. All UST.

I find the RQ a good summer tyre, but clogs up with mud too easily in winter.

And it doesn’t roll that well either, great front wheel grip, but I prefer a better rolling tyre on the rear.

rubber queen 2.4 on the front, 2.2 on the back

That’s what I run.

I have ran 2.4 Rubber Queens Front and Back. When those died I was pestered into going 2.4 front and 2.2 back. I have to say the non black chili UST 2.2 rear has impressed me at all and I will be going back to 2.4s all round as soon as it is dead. The 2.2 is totally outclassed by the 2.4 in terms of grip. The new 2.2 black chilli UST should be loads better.

On a side note I have never understood why people mismatch tyre sizes or tyre types for that matter.

MSP – Member

I find the RQ a good summer tyre, but clogs up with mud too easily in winter.

And it doesn’t roll that well either, great front wheel grip, but I prefer a better rolling tyre on the rear.

I have to disagree on both points there. The tread patter is so open I dont see how it can clog in mud at all. I have used mine year round and although they are not great in mud they never ever clog?

For the grip of the tyre I havent found anything better rolling at all. Other tyres grip as much but are draggier or roll as well but dont grip.

On a side note I have never understood why people mismatch tyre sizes or tyre types for that matter.

Here’s a couple of reasons. You have more force going through the front than the back so more grip on the front is good. Clearance… I can’t physically fot a 2.4 in the back of mine.

Tread is too shallow to bite into some mud and it just wipes out.

It’s an extreme example, but I thought it was particularly bad at Aston Hill (which is slippery chalky muddy hell when wet).

I have never understood why people mismatch tyre sizes or tyre types for that matter.

Smaller on rear for less resistance.

Lower tread tyre on rear for similar reason, particularly in summer.

5thElefant – Member

On a side note I have never understood why people mismatch tyre sizes or tyre types for that matter.

Here’s a couple of reasons. You have more force going through the front than the back so more grip on the front is good. Clearance… I can’t physically fot a 2.4 in the back of mine.[/quote]

By the rational that more force is going through the front why do motorbikes run wider rear tyres than front? The amount of pressure being put through the front during braking especially as virtually zero braking force is going through the rear (2 x 320 discs up front with a single 200mm? disc out back). Before anyone says that it is due to the power being put through the back end during acceleration this applys to all motor bikes from 50cc all the way through to 1000cc superbikes? Will a 50cc bike really overcome the grip provided by a similar width rear tyre?

Surely grip front and back is good? In my limited experience I have found a narrower rear tyre makes the bike ‘feel’ faster downhill. The stopwatch tells a different story.

I guess I just feel more comfortable running the same front and rear as I definately ride the rear wheel an awfull lot more on the descents only really weighting the front into corners.

chakaping – Member

Tread is too shallow to bite into some mud and it just wipes out.

It’s an extreme example, but I thought it was particularly bad at Aston Hill (which is slippery chalky muddy hell when wet).

Agreed on being to shallow to bite. The 2.4 particularly aquaplanes across the top of the surface on muddy surfaces.

RQ 2.4s front and back. Frame limitations aside, also don’t see the point in running smaller at the back.

By the rational that more force is going through the front why do motorbikes run wider rear tyres than front? The amount of pressure being put through the front during braking especially as virtually zero braking force is going through the rear (2 x 320 discs up front with a single 200mm? disc out back). Before anyone says that it is due to the power being put through the back end during acceleration this applys to all motor bikes from 50cc all the way through to 1000cc superbikes? Will a 50cc bike really overcome the grip provided by a similar width rear tyre?

A good point. Look at small bikes and there is very little difference in tyre sizes front and back (have a look at some 125 gp bikes). As bikes get more powerful the front tyre gets a bit bigger to cope with the slight increase in weight. The rear gets much bigger to cope with the extra power. The fact that you accelerate lent over and brake upright undoubtedly exaggerates things.

On a bicycle you have next to no acceleration forces but large braking forces, and you can’t really accelerate lent over.

Surely grip front and back is good? In my limited experience I have found a narrower rear tyre makes the bike ‘feel’ faster downhill. The stopwatch tells a different story.

Sure, but it’s a compromise. You can’t use as much grip on the back and more grip = more weight (bigger tyre).

And… I can’t fit a 2.4″ in the back 😉

Motorbikes have a powerful motor so need big rubber on the drive wheel to avoid spinning-out. The reverse logic with pedal bikes.

Some tyres have ramped centre knobs. A trick for soft conditions is to reverse the rear tyre so that when climbing you are driving the knobs’ edges, rather than the ramps, into the surface. It gives easier climbing grip at the expense of some rolling speed and braking grip.

I’d like to try the RQs but they seem damn expensive.

Looks like I’m the odd one out here. On my summer hardtail I run a 2.1 Nobby Nic on the front and a 2.2 Wild GripR on a wider rim at the back.

Thin(ish) tyre on the front for light weight and speed. Fat tyre on the back for comfort and climbing traction. Wider rim at the back because I once rolled the tyre off the old 717 in a corner.

Fat tyres both ends for the fully rigid winter bike.

I run a 2.4 with 2.2 on the back – maybe my logic is flawed but I’d rather have a slightly less grippy tyre on the back so that if I’m going to lose traction, its going to be the back end that goes first. The 2.2 is also a good bit lighter.

On my heckler 2.2 RQ front and back.

@ 5thElefant – Thats a good example. I am happy sticking with what I like to use (Front & Rear matched) but its a good debate!

@ Buzz Lightyear – They are expensive but I have squeezed 9 months of riding in the lakes (2, 3 or 4 times a week) out of them. They really are top drawer but the new 2011 mountain king, Baron and the X King all look interesting. There are also wired and non chilli versions which are much cheaper. The cheapest queen is £15.95, £30 if you go for plain folders.

I’d have thought 2.4 Conti RQ was over kill for that bike especially rear

I’ve run 2.2 RQ (Trail King) front and back on both my Genius and Ransom this summer with no feelings of being under tyre’d and thats Whistler/Squamish AM riding.

For a bike I’m predominately pedalling i’ll move to 2.2RQ front, 2.2MK2 rear

the 2.4 RQ sits on my Voltage FR.. mostly squamish shuttles and a bit of bike park action with a very infrequent amount of pedalling up.
2.4 RQ perfect in that application although I’d probably try 2.3 Baron next on it.

I don’t find that the 2.4″s are any worse to pedal than the 2.2s, probably they are slower, but I’m not racing, so it doesn’t matter so long as they don’t feel slow.

Rudedog, if one of your wheels is going to slide it won’t be the rear because it’s got a smaller tyre on. Which tyre slides will depend a lot more on the exact trail conditions under each tyre, steering angle, angle of the bike and your weight balance between the two wheels. You should be able to control your bike much better by shifting body-weight than swapping tyres.

One of the major benefits of the 2.4″ on the rear is that it has a high profile, so on a hard tail at low pressure it can take a massive amount of sting out of the trail, compared with a smaller tyre.

paulrockliffe – Member

I don’t find that the 2.4″s are any worse to pedal than the 2.2s, probably they are slower, but I’m not racing, so it doesn’t matter so long as they don’t feel slow.

I’ve done a number of 50-60 mile rides on a Lapierre Spicy with 2.4s F&R and have to say I would have no hesitation doing the same again. I agree that any increase in speed on the 2.2s is more than lost in the reduced volume and grip against the 2.4 but again each to their own. I am happy with what I run, if something works better for others than fair enough.

2.2 RQ on the front, with a Bonty Mud-X 2.0 on the rear. Changed the rear as the winter mud took hold, had no rear problems with grip/blocked tread at the front, so haven’t fitted the matching mud-x on the front

2.2 ust rubber queens front and back for life.

Nah, Spesh Eskar 2.3 front and back, so so much lighter and cheaper too. Dont like tyres much over 700g, i feel the drag caused is very noticable.

I run a slightly larger front tyre so that
when slamming into corners the back will breakaway before the front, which is alot easier to control

I matched my 2.4 front with a 2.2 rear initially, then with a 2.1 nevegal which did the exact same job, with a bit less drag and better mud manners, less weight, oh and half the price 😉

Wasn’t convinced by the Rubber Queens, they’re big tyres that act like small tyres- so you get big tyre weight but small tyre rolling resistance. But also unfortunately small tyre grip. Edge grip when cornered hard was so imbalanced with the straightline grip that it kept catching me out too. Decent enough tyres but I hated that inconsistency, they go from great grip to no grip to suddenly and when they slide, they really go.

smuttiesmith – Member
“By the rational that more force is going through the front why do motorbikes run wider rear tyres than front?”

As soon as your legs start generating 50 horsepower, you should totally fit a bigger rear tyre than the front. Til then, it might not be the best comparison 😉

Less drag on a Nevegal? I felt like I’d realised my brakes when I changed from Nevagal to RQ..

2.1 DTC, absolutely. The 2.4 RQ drags a lot less than my usual 2.35 stick-e nevegal on the front, but then again, it doesn’t offer anything like as much grip so that’s only fair.

I run a slightly larger front tyre so that
when slamming into corners the back will breakaway before the front, which is alot easier to control

Also achievable by running matching tyres with less pressure up front.
/2c

I run the UST versions, 2.4 black chilli up front and a normal 2.2 on the back.
Absolutely love the 2.4 on the front, the large volume means you can hit big rocks hard without pinching. Grip is great as well, it is even confidence inspiring in Whinlatter.
What pressures do others run the 2.4 UST at, I find I can run it ridiculously low, like under 20psi low, and it feels brilliant.

Northwind, show me a vehicle that generates more power in acceleration than it does in breaking then you will have a point. Not many accelerate 0-60 faster than they brake from 60-0. Apparently a Bugatti Veyron apparently achieves a braking equivalent of 2000hp which makes it’s engine look puny.

Vim, I run mine at 30-35psi but I have never been a fan of extreme low pressures full stop.

show me a vehicle that generates more power in acceleration than it does in breaking

Large motorcycles produce more lateral force during acceleration than braking. Or at least they’re designed to cope with more. Hence the huge difference between skinny front and fat rear tyres. The same is true of cars to a lesser extent. You brake in a straight line, accelerate around a corner (predominantly).

Vim, I run mine at 30-35psi but I have never been a fan of extreme low pressures full stop.

I just checked it one day and couldn’t believe how low it was, I took it back up to the pressures you’re on about and it didn’t feel as good, but I do tend to go for about 30psi, just to be on the safe side. With it’s size it’s a tyre I always thought would move aroung alot, but it doesn’t, quite amazing really.
I believe Conti quote even higher minimum pressures for it, Never had so much as burp out of it.

show me a vehicle that generates more power in acceleration than it does in breaking

Large motorcycles produce more lateral force during acceleration than braking. Or at least they’re designed to cope with more. Hence the huge difference between skinny front and fat rear tyres. The same is true of cars to a lesser extent. You brake in a straight line, accelerate around a corner (predominantly).

Do a lot breaking leant over on your mountain bike? I have found that most braking on an mtb is done in a straight line also. The asymmetry of tyre widths between front and rear tyres on a motorbike has a lot to do with improving cornering. If you were to swap the widths around the bike would not want to turn in at all.

Which leads me back to the point that running narrower tyres on the back than the front is a waste of time. The weight saved is negligible, the sensation of the rear being looser isn’t going to make you faster and it is not going to be some kind of fail safe. If your pushing the front tyre then it is that that will lose traction.

With reference to rubber queens I cannot imagine the circumstances which would make a 1.1kg 2.4 free ride tyre on the front paired with a 2.1 XC rear tyre a good combo. If you can run that back tyre you sure as heck don’t need RQ 2.4 on the front.

well iv just bought a RQ to try aloong qith a 2.5 rear conti Diesl.
im having a tyre thing at the moment, im tryin WTB’s Timberwolf for down hill. but what i want to find is a tyre a do it all tyre for XC and DH. im like my fat alberts

I have a pair of the new Mountain King 2.2 ProTection (Black Chilli)tyres on the go right now and am very impressed. They roll very fast and gave superb grip on the snow and ice covered trails round these parts. They also come up as a true 2.2 unlike the the Rubber Queens that are huge even in 2.2 flavour.

Tomorrow morning will be their first outing in ordinary conditions seeing as the snow has finally gone!

I ran 2.2 Rubber Queen UST tyres for a week in the Alps this year and generally they were very good although the grip on wet roots could have been better…they weren’t the Black Chilli ones though.

smuttiesmith – Member

“Northwind, show me a vehicle that generates more power in acceleration than it does in breaking then you will have a point.”

Um, I do have a point but you’ve obviously completely missed it- the point is that comparing motorbikes with pushbikes (or with Veyrons for that matter) is utterly meaningless.

Yes your right I have completely missed your point. I don’t remember suggesting wheelspin was a problem due to excess power on a mountain bike but you seemed to have picked up on it? I have asked why people think it is a good idea to run wide front tyres with narrower back tyres. A question you haven’t answered.

I think this forum has done to death that such small amounts of weight have a negligible effect on bike performance. The fact that the weight is rotational, again, is going to have very little affect on performance. So the weight saving isn’t beneficial. I guess it comes down to whether a faster rolling tread out back is going to help more than having the grip but if you don’t need the grip it might be that you don’t need the grippier front anyway?

Oh if you could you answer where this trail is that needs the 2.4 rubber queen up front but only a 2.1 nevgal out back that would appreciated as well.

In case your wondering, I live in the lakes and 95% of my riding is here. I am happy to sacrifice out and out speed for grip and 100% reliability on the rocky stuff.

smuttiesmith – Member

“Yes your right I have completely missed your point.”

Fair enough, good of you to admit your mistake.

“I guess it comes down to whether a faster rolling tread out back is going to help more than having the grip but if you don’t need the grip it might be that you don’t need the grippier front anyway?”

Nope- The 2.2 had marginally more straightline grip but less edge grip, and less mud grip, so it’s not swapping grip for speed. The fact that the Nevegal is half the price is just the icing on the cake, even if you don’t think the substantial weight difference is relevant.

“Oh if you could you answer where this trail is that needs the 2.4 rubber queen up front but only a 2.1 nevgal out back that would appreciated as well.”

Hmm, well, that combo worked well for uplift days at nevis range and at innerleithen, but also for more general XC and trail centre stuff. I figure if I get good performance from “only a 2.1” on the world cup route then it’s good enough for me 😉 Probably a lot of that I could have got by with a less grippy front tyre but I don’t shuffle tyres much, I want something that works for everything and it was decent for that.

“I have asked why people think it is a good idea to run wide front tyres with narrower back tyres. A question you haven’t answered.”

Why would I answer a question that’s already been answered?