As Title says really, I have a Specialized Eskar Control 2bliss on the rear 2.35 and a Conti MK ll 2.35 on the front, I am impressed with the grip both tyres give but the Eskar will need changing soon so I was contemplating getting a Conti MKll 2.2 to replace it and swapping the current MK to the rear.
Would the wider tyre be better for grip on the front though?
Various ways of arguing it.
Why go narrower? Lighter does not nec. mean faster.
Mine came from specialized with different tyres front and rear, and Wider front than rear.
I just Presumed they knew what they were doing 
I'd put the one with the best grip on at the front, which, other things being equal, will probably be the widest.
Why go narrower? Lighter does not nec. mean faster.
True not looking for lightness just thought it may be better for grip and being more nibble having narrower on the front and more traction having wider on the rear for climbing especially for techy climbs.
I prefer wider up front, maximise grip when cornering while minimising draggy rear wheel. Have a mate who rides the opposite and he is pretty quick! I think the hardtail can benefit on some rough stuff with a bit more volume at the back.
I always run the grippest/widest tyre on the front.
wider = more grip.
How often do you lose traction on climbs? I'd rather have that than on the front in descents!
The wider front tyre rule was established back in BMX days - my Burner had a right fat one on the front and a thin one at the back. Didn't stop me crashing though.
i've got my biggest tyre on the back, it gives a little bit of 'suspension'.
(it's a hardtail, and i'm an idiot)
Wider up front, if I'm not running the same. Grippier and also adds a bit more 'suspension' if on a rigid - legs acting as the rear 'suspension'!
Defo wider on the front, plenty of bikes come like that, never heard of it the other way round!
Depends - wider front for better grip or wider rear for more comfort.
I usually go with the same or wider front but used to ride wider rear back in the days of panaracer smoke / darts
narrowest on back.
I manual through rock gardens, mud and roots and want the least rolling resistance.
Wider on front for me as well.
I tried a mates bike is running his the other way round and as soon as I hit a bit of slop and had to steer the front started to slip out.
Depends if you ride like a roadie **** or can actually ride off road fairly well.
Tread, compound and pressure are all more important than 0.15 difference in width.
The width of the rim also matters
Narrower tyres are not always less grippy
wider front always. If tyres are equal tread but you have more grip at the rear and are on the edge of traction what do you think will happen when you lose traction? Bang front wheel washes out rather than rear going and you losing speed then regaining control.
Also suspension on the rear? why not just stand up and let the bike deal with it whilst you use your arms/legs as suspension?
Not if you actually weight the bike properly.
Front wheel wash-outs can be saved too you know 🙄
Don't think anyone's mentioned that front tyres should almost always be run at a lower pressure too
Also suspension on the rear? why not just stand up and let the bike deal with it whilst you use your arms/legs as suspension?
perhaps 'suspension' is/was the wrong word. in my humble opinion a big tyre with a few less psi (than a smaller tyre would need) feels really nice over rocks and roots.
i've found that a 2.4" advantage works quite well at this. and the effect seems to be more noticeable when it's on the back, so that's where it goes.
i've got a high roller 2.3ish on the front, when it wears out i'll try something else.
Even I can get enough weight on the front that the rear will always slide first when I remember 😳
Much as it pains me 😉 I gotta agree with GW 100% here.
He's blunt but he knows what he's talking about.
Personally I've never been a fan of the whole wider tyre on one end thing, either on a hardtail or a full sus. Always tend to run the same widths front and back, with if anything a slightly grippier tread up front and faster out back. Sometimes the same front and back though so the bike is very neutral.
Oh and pressures V important too. Probably run 10-15% higher pressures in my rear tyre than front for a given tyre size.
Ahw - Qualifying yourself as an idiot was good enough tbf
I would of thought when it comes to un-weighting the front then you will need plenty of grip on the rear and when it comes to cornering you want the rear to dig in, perhaps I'm over thinking this 😕
No bites Gary,...tsk tsk.
Singlespeed_Shep - Member
narrowest on back.I manual through rock gardens, mud and roots and want the least rolling resistance.
😀
Underthinking more like heckler, every cormer's different.
Depends if you ride like a roadie **** or can actually ride off road fairly well.
The GW school of riding. "you're shit and ride like a roadie, give up MTB and stick to drop bar bikes"
Student: "thanks"
@OP
I prefer a grippier tyre at the front, often slightly larger. I agree with Grumpy Wench above, tread and pressure are more important that width.
Normally 5 psi less on the front and a fairly fast tyre on the back so it breaks loose easier. Rear wheel drift is a beautiful thing.
GW: "you're shit and ride like a roadie, give up MTB and stick to drop bar bikes"
he's not the first person i've heard this from.
I didn't actually say (or even imply) it.
🙄
One point to note is that makes of tyres differ in actual width.
I have a 2:35 Nevegal on the front which is fractionally wider than the 2:5 High Roller on the back.
Compound is more of an issue than width. The Nevegal grips way better than the high roller. Better to have the back end break away first any day.
Fastest rolling on back - my fat a*se means it sticks like velcro anyway, grippiest on front. Size is less important than compound and tread IMO in this.