# Tire width for a 29" hardtail...



## Zirkel (Apr 15, 2004)

For the past 5 years I've ridden *27.5 x 2.8 tires* (Rekons, DHR/DHF, Rangers) on my beloved Gen 1 *Marin Pine Mountain 2*. I broke that frame earlier this Summer, and am about to pull the trigger on a (mostly) custom steel hardtail.

It appears the 27.5 platform is on it's way out the door, and 29 is becoming the tire size of choice. The problem is, the few times I've ridden 29, it seems kinda' tall for my liking. I'm hoping it's all just a matter of getting used to a larger tire size, and the superiority of 29 will soon becoming self-evident.

Which brings me to my question:

I'm having to choose a tire width for this custom build, and because I'm having to bump up to a 29" wheel, I'm unsure if I should mount up with a 2.6 or 2.4? The chainstay yoke will accomodate a 29 x 2.6, but is this an unweildy width consideriing the 29 platform? Or should I go with a 2.4 instead? Like I said, I've mostly ridden plus tires, and appreciate the forgiveness of the ride.

I'll most likely shoe this bike with 29 Rekons MaxxTerra Exo+ set up tubeless (or a Forecaster/Rekon combo). Rims will be Stans MK4 i30.

2.4 or 2.6?

As always, your expertise is appreciated.


----------



## jannmayer (10 mo ago)

I would absolutely go for 2.6" tires. It's not much difference in height, but the extra volume will help cushion the rear. The extra width helps with loose rocks too.

I rode a lot of rocky trails and wouldn't consider going less than 2.6 on my hardtail. I am fairly tall though, so the larger wheels fit me well.


----------



## Darthur (4 mo ago)

Agree.
I ride my Krampus with 2 different wheelsets. One with 2.0" tires, and the other with 3.0". I love the wider tires. I ride both on singletrack, and usually only mount the 2.0" if the ride will have a good amount of pavement and gravel. Just got a Specialized Chisel and will mount the largest tires I can fit. Probably a 2.4" rear and a 2.8" or 3.0" front


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

I ride both sizes on i30mm rims. 2.6” can be run at slightly lower pressure so it has a touch more traction and impact absorption. However, tends to wiggle just a bit in the corners so is less precise. 2.4” is a bit more precise. So I ride more aggressive 2.4” tires when I’m riding technical trails and pushing it in the corners and faster rolling 2.6” for long rides and rocky/rooty trails. Difference is really fairly minor so you can’t go too wrong either way.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

2.6 is my preferred size on a hardtail with 35mm internal width rims.


----------



## dave_rh (Jul 28, 2014)

FishMan473 said:


> I ride both sizes on i30mm rims. 2.6” can be run at slightly lower pressure so it has a touch more traction and impact absorption. However, tends to wiggle just a bit in the corners so is less precise. 2.4” is a bit more precise. So I ride more aggressive 2.4” tires when I’m riding technical trails and pushing it in the corners and faster rolling 2.6” for long rides and rocky/rooty trails. Difference is really fairly minor so you can’t go too wrong either way.


For 30mm internal rims, I recommend a 29x2.4 max. Particularly as a rear tyre. Recommend using 35mm rims if planning to use a 2.6 tyre.

I run a 29x2.4 (claimed) Rekon Race on the rear with 30mm internal rims. Its a 120tpi tyre and actually inflates to 2.5 when I measure it. I love the extra volume but its a bit squirmy and wiggly, particularly on fast corners. I put the squirmy nature down to the thin sidewalls and larger bag size. I run a slightly higher rear air pressure to minimise the tyre squirm.


----------



## dryk1t (7 mo ago)

27.5 is not going anywhere. Look at the desire for mullet rigs. If social media commentators / product reviewers and the marketing money beast as a whole has its way, everyone will keep the sales of 27.5's for perpetuity.

I am 5'10 and run 29ers and love it but I can totally see where they can be overbearing / too large to be comfortable for many. If you find the 29ers too much, or even people who like a lively, tight rear but don't opt for 29ers with shorter chainstays and shorter progressive travel, mullets could be the best of both worlds.

-----------

I run Maxxis 2.3 all the way through to 2.6 on my 30mm inner and they work a charm on my Fathom 29er.

If doing more serious use with the hardtail on more intense trails / jumps I run DD maxxis casings on rear. So far flawless. I have been experimenting with 2.6WT's in 120tpi on the front as well and so far so good!

Aggressor (2.3/2.5)
DHF/Assegai (2.5/2.6)
DHR (2.5)
Ardent Race (2.35) (actually a dream pair front and rear for general duty bike use with family, gravel, hardpack, roads, great utility, super fast).
2022+ Forekaster (2.4 (yet to try 2.6)) on the front when running the Ardent Race on rear and want to do some light trail work but the grip up front is needed. I can see myself constantly cycling the Forekaster, the more worn on the back and a freshy up front and probably not replace the ardent races, but we will see.

I have been using the more serious tyres less and less though now I have a FS, but when the FS is in for work / servicing suspension, the HT gets the beefier rubber on again pretty quickly.


----------



## 916062 (Aug 3, 2021)

I currently like i32mm rims with 29x2.6 tires on my krampus. 3.0 tires were the jam when I lived in the desert so it also depends on your conditions.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Zirkel said:


> I'm having to choose a tire width for this custom build, and because I'm having to bump up to a 29" wheel, I'm unsure if I should mount up with a 2.6 or 2.4? The chainstay yoke will accomodate a 29 x 2.6, but is this an unweildy width consideriing the 29 platform? Or should I go with a 2.4 instead? Like I said, I've mostly ridden plus tires, and appreciate the forgiveness of the ride.


I wouldn't ride a 29er HT with tires smaller than 2.6". I've also got 29er HTs with 2.8" and 3.0" tires.


----------



## islander (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm riding a 29er HT with 29x2.6 tires, swapping between XR2s in the dry and T9 Butchers in the wet. On Vancouver's north shore, I'm having zero issues with them and am running them on i30 rim. Carries speed a lot better than my 27.5 wheels with 2.5s


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

I certainly agree with Dave and Cary that 2.6" tires fit best with ~i35mm rims. I've got some ibis rims with i34 rims which I run with 2.6" XR4's and they do provide good cushioning and control on rough rocky terrain. However, they are heavy, and spin up slowly. They feel slow and plodding and are less fun to ride overall (unless you are crushing chunky terrain with surprising ease). One of the things I really like about a hardtail is the zippiness, so I'm trying to ride lighter tire/wheel combos for now. But if you have to deal with some chunkiness, then yeah, the wider rims and bigger tires have the advantage.


----------



## FishMan473 (Jan 2, 2003)

vikb said:


> I wouldn't ride a 29er HT with tires smaller than 2.6". I've also got 29er HTs with 2.8" and 3.0" tires.













29" wheels do a lot to smooth out the ride in and of themselves. However, I am also partial to bigger tires. If I wanted some go-fast tires, I could see going down to 2.2", but overall I think 2.4-2.6" is the sweet spot. As they get larger, I don't thin the extra weight is worth the trade off for the cush for technical riding. Bikepacking or better float in sandy conditions, sure.


----------



## Grindup (9 mo ago)

Go with 2.6 tires.


----------



## asilker (5 mo ago)

Im on i30.5 with 2.6 and I love it. Other than that I've spent time on 2.2 and big ole fatties so I can't speak to 2.4


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

They have to get the casing right for 2.6 and the right rim width for it to feel good. My XR6 2.6 on i30 felt like an undamped balloon. Every other 2.6 I tried measures out to 2.5.

Went "meh" and have been riding 2.4s mostly. There is usually a decent amount of extra weight for a true 2.6.

I have i32 rims now though and have been debating trying 2.6....then I look at the weight and think how happy I am with my 2.4s

If high speed, berms, etc are part of your normal riding I think 2.4s win. If rocky, rooty, sandy, just rough and slower. I can see 2.6s winning out.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

I went from a 27.5x2.8(on WTB i40) Bombtrack Beyond+ in rigid mode to a Sherpa with Astral Serpentine(alloy) i32mm with 29x2.6 tires. I can keep the psi kind of close to the 2.8s while having improved roll over. I will eventually try a smaller 2.5 in the rear to see how that compares. But, for the front I prefer not to go smaller than 2.6. Having the bike have clearance for 2.6 is just a nice bonus, cause you can still ride it with narrower tires like 2.4.


----------



## gdb85 (Mar 4, 2017)

Too be honest what I have come to realize that a 2.6 is not much better than a 2.4 on an i30 rim, not for the weight penalty anyway. I have a 2.35 Eliminator on an i30 and it is 60mm knob-knob and a 2.6 Eliminator on an i30 and it is 62mm knob-knob, not much difference but there is 85gr weight penalty for the 2.6.

Now take this with a grain of salt, all brands are different, this is just my findings comparing apples to apples or Eliminator to Eliminator...


----------



## Yootah (Jun 30, 2017)

I don't know that I ever wanna ride a hardtail with less than 2.8 ever again. Not for trails, anyway. If 2.6 is really the biggest that'll fit then that's what I'd go with, but if you're getting a custom frame, why not spec it for better stay width?


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Yootah said:


> I don't know that I ever wanna ride a hardtail with less than 2.8 ever again. Not for trails, anyway. If 2.6 is really the biggest that'll fit then that's what I'd go with, but if you're getting a custom frame, why not spec it for better stay width?


Because "Better" is subjective. I am real happy with my 29 x 2.4 tires.


----------



## BurnieM (Jul 11, 2021)

Running a Marin HT with 27.5 DT Swiss EX511 rims (30mm internal).
Maxxis Assegai 2.50 on the front and Maxxis Dissector 2.40 on the rear.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

cassieno said:


> Because "Better" is subjective. I am real happy with my 29 x 2.4 tires.


So is the term bicycle...


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

Interesting thread.

I just picked up a Roscoe that came with 29x2.6 XR4's.

I had 29x2.4's on my prior FS bike and was planning to run them again on the Roscoe.

Most of my riding is smooth, other than occasional roots. No real technical chunk to deal with. I weigh 220

I was debating which size to run and i bought a new set of wheels for it, i was going back and forth between 30 or 35 mm id.

I went with 30's, thinking I'd stick with 2.4's, but now I'm 2nd guessing myself.

I ran 29+ for a few years so I'm well aware of what 3 inch wide tires feel like (WTB Ranger and Chupacabra). On 40 mm internal rims to be clear.


----------



## gdb85 (Mar 4, 2017)

I use the XR4's on two bikes, both have i30 rims and both have 2.4 on R and 2.6 on F. The 2.6 plays nice on the i30 rim, it is not rounded and offers good support. I was thinking of going with a 2.6 on the R but I like a faster tire out back. I am also very close to 220 with full camelback and helmet. IMO you'll be fine with 2.6's as a nice alternative...they offer nice volume.

3.0 is another story, I don't think I'd attempt that on i30 rims but...come to think of it i had a Stumpy 6Fattie in 2016 and Spesh spec'd it with 3.0 tires on i30 rims and had a blast on that bike.


----------



## Swerny (Apr 1, 2004)

gdb85 said:


> I use the XR4's on two bikes, both have i30 rims and both have 2.4 on R and 2.6 on F. The 2.6 plays nice on the i30 rim, it is not rounded and offers good support. I was thinking of going with a 2.6 on the R but I like a faster tire out back. I am also very close to 220 with full camelback and helmet. IMO you'll be fine with 2.6's as a nice alternative...they offer nice volume.
> 
> 3.0 is another story, I don't think I'd attempt that on i30 rims but...come to think of it i had a Stumpy 6Fattie in 2016 and Spesh spec'd it with 3.0 tires on i30 rims and had a blast on that bike.


thanks, to be clear the 3.0's I ran were on 40 or 45 id rims on my fat bike (summer setup)

I just wanted to add that bit that I am used to riding wide tires.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Zirkel said:


> 2.4 or 2.6?


My hardtails roll on:

29 x 2.6"x 2
29 x 2.8" x 1
29 x 3.0" x 1
If you offered me a nice HT frame for free that only fit 29 x 2.4" tires I wouldn't bother keeping it. I'd never ride it. Clearance for 2.6" tires is the minimum I'd consider.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Where as I don't really like 2.6 tires. I have tried a couple and I was never able to get the feeling I wanted (my rims probably weren't wide enough). But, I have been able to get the exact feel I want with 2.4s.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

I bought and sold/gave away so many 2.4" tires it made my VISA cry. Then 2.5" tires.....which were better and I could ride them, but didn't fully love them. Finally 2.6" tires where I stopped being pissed off at the small volume and really had no complaints. 

If you have clearance for a 2.6" tire in your frame you can always run a 2.4" tire, but if you only build it to clear a 2.4" and regret that there is nothing you can do. If you add sliders to the frame you can also adjust CS length to suit the size tire you are running and get tempted by the darkside of SS.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Oh, fully support tempted by the darkside of SS. It's a wonderful way of riding a mountain bike. Unfortunately doesn't work for me / my life right now. But, maybe next year.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

cassieno said:


> Oh, fully support tempted by the darkside of SS. It's a wonderful way of riding a mountain bike. Unfortunately doesn't work for me / my life right now. But, maybe next year.


There's no time like the present!  

I'd be in trouble without my SS.


----------



## Funoutside (Jul 17, 2019)

I like 29x2.6 cause it offers better traction in the sand & covers up some of my mistakes better on my HT.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Yootah said:


> I don't know that I ever wanna ride a hardtail with less than 2.8 ever again. Not for trails, anyway. If 2.6 is really the biggest that'll fit then that's what I'd go with, but if you're getting a custom frame, why not spec it for better stay width?





cassieno said:


> Because "Better" is subjective. I am real happy with my 29 x 2.4 tires.


The two posts above make for an interesting exchange. I think Yootah makes an excellent point.
If you're commissioning a custom frame, there's no downside to having the frame built to accept larger tires (say, 2.8 to 3.0".)
Don't want to run tires that large? Cool. That same frame will accommodate smaller tires just fine (say, 2.4".)
But if you spec the frame with 2.4" max tire size and then decide to go the other way -- that is you want to try 2.8 or 3.0" tires, you can't do it. Frame clearance isn't there.
So it seems to me that a frame that accepts larger tires really is better. It isn't subjective, it's objectively better because you can run any size tire in that frame, including 2.4s.
What am I missing, cassieno?
=sParty


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Sparticus said:


> The two posts above make for an interesting exchange. I think Yootah makes an excellent point.
> If you're commissioning a custom frame, there's no downside to having the frame built to accept larger tires (say, 2.8 to 3.0".)
> Don't want to run tires that large? Cool. That same frame will accommodate smaller tires just fine (say, 2.4".)
> But if you spec the frame with 2.4" max tire size and then decide to go the other way -- that is you want to try 2.8 or 3.0" tires, you can't do it. Frame clearance isn't there.
> ...


Frankly, a custom that is limited to minus tires would not cause my check book to be pulled out of the drawer. Utility comes up at the top of the list. Then my CAD work will be refined before blueprint submittal.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Sparticus said:


> So it seems to me that a frame that accepts larger tires really is better. It isn't subjective, it's objectively better because you can run any size tire in that frame, including 2.4
> What am I missing, cassieno?
> =sParty


You aren't really. It's just up to you and your frame designer to determine what trade-offs if any there are going with a frame designed for 3.0s.

Off the top of my head chainline to clear the 3.0 is a negative (I spend a lot of time in my 50t) and potentially crank width /wider q factor. 

Chainline can be addressed /helped with superboost 157 (I think, again haven't checked) . Or it's not something that bothers the rider. 

Same with crank width. It might not be a tradeoff / the wider q factor might not make a difference. 

For me, for a custom frame I want it to be the best at the thing I want it to do - not be the most versatile. So there are some trade-offs I wouldn't want. 

But again that's for the builder and customer to figure out.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

There's another factor in rim width for 2.6 tires. Air pressure. You can run less with a wider rim and not get foldover. But you're limited in how low you can go by the speed and rockiness of the toughest segment of your trail. An insert can help.


----------



## Little_twin (Feb 23, 2016)

I ride 29x2.1 gravel tires where most run 2.6 mountain tires and they don’t slow me down. Big tires are heavy and detrimental to handling. Big tires also require different considerations when building a frame, some negatively affect the handling and aren’t worth it “just in case”. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Darthur (4 mo ago)

I guess what I'm about to say isn't surprising, but I really thought on the super rooty trails I ride, the fatter tires would've been faster:
Most of my Strava PRs on singletrack on my Krampus were on the cheap wheels (OEM from an AllCity Macho Disc cross bike) with cheap Specialized Fastrack 29x2.0"+tubes.
My nice White Ind. / Stans Baron 29x3.0" Maxxis Chronicle tubeless have been slower. But, more fun to ride and way more comfy, obviously.
And this is totally anecdotal, YMMV.

That said, I'm still going for the widest tires that will fit. Not racing, just riding trails for fun on a rigid bike.


----------

