# 26x2.0 or 26x2.10 or bigger?



## kamidsake (Jan 29, 2012)

Which one is better tires for a mountain bike..26x2.0 or 26x2.10 or much bigger? does the bigger width will affect the breaking power of a bike?


----------



## Mordock (Jan 9, 2012)

Preference. 
Both. I personally enjoy a 2.2 or 2.3 on the front and then 2.0 on the back. This allows for a little better handling. Both of my tires are Captains.


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2007)

The numbers rarely reflect real size of the tyres. I have Specialized Revolution 2.0, which is larger, than most 2.3 tyres I have ever used. Like *mmisko*, I prefer running a larger tyre in the front. Partly because it makes the head tube angle a bit slacker, but mostly I just like how it looks. 
BTW, actual width of tyre depends to some extent on the rim, on a wider rim the same tyre will be wider as well.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Agreed, agreed^^. It certainly depends on rim size and real measurement is usually different than what it says. 
I'd hardly take credit for this trend but I used to think/feel like I was the only one that ran a bigger tire in front. Now it seems like everyone does. I also like a front tire with a more rounded profile, and the back squarer. 
Local terrain has a lot to do with it also. See what locals are using and test ride 'em on there bike.
BTW, on my trail bike I run around 2.0 rear / 2.3 front, with a bit more air in rear.


----------



## lightjunction (May 17, 2011)

I ride 2.1-2.3" tires. It all depends on preference, riding style and trail conditions. Bigger tires with bigger knobs certainly get more traction and braking power, but they're heavier too.


----------



## kamidsake (Jan 29, 2012)

I asked the saleslady at the bikeshop if size 26 rim is compatible with tire like KENDA NEVEGAL of about 2.10, 2.2 or 2.3 then she answered " yes " .... then my friend told me that bigger tires is only for downhill..so I wanna know which width of tire is suited for all typed of trails, roads..downhill or not...and guys a little bit questions for GT frames..most likely made from taiwan? which is more definite to know if it is original aside from triple triangle design, embedded on tube, serial number... ?


----------



## nauc (Sep 9, 2009)

i have 2.1 Nevegals on the front and the rear. lovin them


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2007)

It was supposed to be in reply to post by *kamidsake*


----------



## xenon (Apr 16, 2007)

kamidsake said:


> I asked the saleslady at the bikeshop if size 26 rim is compatible with tire like KENDA NEVEGAL of about 2.10, 2.2 or 2.3 then she answered " yes " .... then my friend told me that bigger tires is only for downhill..so I wanna know which width of tire is suited for all typed of trails, roads..downhill or not...and guys a little bit questions for GT frames..most likely made from taiwan? which is more definite to know if it is original aside from triple triangle design, embedded on tube, serial number... ?


In my opinion, the knob pattern is more important, than tyre width. I like smaller knobs in tight pattern (my current tyres are GEAX Saguaro 2.2 both F and R). It is faster and generally better for hard surface, but not particularly good for muddy conditions. 
Nevegals are known for good traction, but also being slow (everything in life comes at cost). They came stock on my GT Avalanche, but eventually I opted for faster tyres.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I use Continental Mtn King tires on my mtb right now, 2.4 front 2.2 rear. I run wider tires because my local trails are very sandy, and big tires and low pressure make it easier to ride in sand. I like the knob pattern for where I ride. medium-sized knobs with good spacing give me enough traction when I need it but are not so tall that they're excessively slow on smoother sections.

bigger tires are not just for downhill. they are for any time you want more cushion or traction (or both). there are some downhill-specific tires that are very thick and heavy, but not all big tires are built like that.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

2.2 front, 2.0 rear. Spec captains. Bigger is better. 
3.8" on the fat bike


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

Big tires rule. Running 2.4 for the traction, pinch flat prevention (still tubes in there, archaic I know), and ride quality. I also match tire sizes because I like the predictability of the tires having the same amount of traction. I often found when running a smaller rear tire that the rear tire would break free sooner (probably due to a higher pressure to reduce pinch flats) and cause a uniquely handling bike.

Bigger tires generally give a larger contact patch so they would improve braking (not breaking) over a smaller tire. 

Remember that every manufacturer is different in their sizing so you might find that a 2.1 Kenda could be the same size as a 2.35 Maxxis.


----------



## PeterF1963 (Jan 16, 2012)

Mountain Kings 2.4 front, 2.2 rear. I do own some smaller tires (Michelins 2.0 front and back). I liked the weight and nimble feeling of the 2.0's, but the 2.4 up front really rolls over logs and rocks more easily. 

The 2.4 Mountain King, although a big tire. is noticeably smaller than a set of Vredestein Bull Lock 2.35's that I used a few times, which are like tractor tires. Too big and the aggressive tread is a tad slow and a lot more work than the Mountain Kings.

Really happy with the Mountain Kings for the trails I ride. Can't see a reason to use anything else.


----------



## PeterF1963 (Jan 16, 2012)

FWIW, the Vredestein Bull Lock 2.35 wouldn't fit in the rear. Almost no clearance around the chainstays on my FS rig.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

zebrahum said:


> Big tires rule. Running 2.4 for the traction, pinch flat prevention (still tubes in there, archaic I know), and ride quality. I also match tire sizes because I like the predictability of the tires having the same amount of traction. I often found when running a smaller rear tire that the rear tire would break free sooner (probably due to a higher pressure to reduce pinch flats) and cause a uniquely handling bike.
> 
> Bigger tires generally give a larger contact patch so they would improve braking (not breaking) over a smaller tire.
> 
> Remember that every manufacturer is different in their sizing so you might find that a 2.1 Kenda could be the same size as a 2.35 Maxxis.


I went bigger on the front only because for me, on my local trails, I only had traction problems in the front on sandy corners when using 2.0's F/R. Too many washouts resulting in face plants. Narrow rear is fine, but the 2.2 Mt King is only a tiny bit bigger than the 2.0 Speshy tires I was using. Now that I have mixed tire sizes, I feel that my traction is balanced between front and rear.


----------



## h2ored (Oct 3, 2008)

Biggggggeeerrrrr!
me 2.5 front, 2.35 rear, dont have to worry about grip.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

The time for skinny tires has come and gone. Even racers are running 2.2s nowadays.


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

Usually run 2.1f/1.9 or 2.0r, the only way I'll use high volume tires (2.4+) is if riding with a rigid fork.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

kamidsake said:


> I asked the saleslady at the bikeshop if size 26 rim is compatible with tire like KENDA NEVEGAL of about 2.10, 2.2 or 2.3 then she answered " yes " .... then my friend told me that bigger tires is only for downhill..so I wanna know which width of tire is suited for all typed of trails, roads..downhill or not...


Your friend is wrong. Plenty of folks run Nevs in 2.1 and 2,35 for general trail riding.

However, if you are looking for a tire for road use, then Nevs are probably not what you want.


----------



## kamidsake (Jan 29, 2012)

*Tires*

So what will be your suggestion for the right tires for road use, light trails..I mean tires that covers all even its downhill,trails etc...


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

kamidsake said:


> So what will be your suggestion for the right tires for road use, light trails..I mean tires that covers all even its downhill,trails etc...


Do some searching over on the wheels and tires board. This question gets asked and addressed often.

In short, NOTHING is going to be that great at road and downhill trail riding, you are going to need to decide what you are willing to sacrifice if you want one tire to do it all. Soft tread compounds are great for off road use but wear quickly on pavement. Hard tread compounds wear well on pavement, but lack off road grip. On trails you want knobbier treads, on pavement smoother treads.


----------



## Dawbs96 (Feb 5, 2012)

Schwalbe crazy bobs 2.35's wicked!


----------

