# Actual maxxis tire widths?



## uncle-mofo (Jul 14, 2006)

Ok I hear alot about maxxis tires being smaller than stated, So does anyone know the actual width of a 2.5 and 2.7 minion, and a 2.5 highroller? How will they measure with my panarace fire FR 2.4?


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

if a maxxis tire says this )---(
it really means that it is )-(


----------



## mtb_biker (Jan 27, 2004)

it also matters how wide your rims are but yes maxxis do measure smaller than most.


----------



## uncle-mofo (Jul 14, 2006)

Ok?........


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

my 2.5 high rollers are smaller than my 2.3 tiogas. my 2.7's minions are smaller than my tioga 2.5's....


----------



## Mc.Dub (Feb 18, 2007)

Hmmm, maybe I could have ordered a bigger High Roller for the rear then. Guess I'll have to wait for my order to come in.


----------



## airwreck (Dec 31, 2003)

uncle-mofo said:


> Ok I hear alot about maxxis tires being smaller than stated, So does anyone know the actual width of a 2.5 and 2.7 minion, and a 2.5 highroller? How will they measure with my panarace fire FR 2.4?


I don't have accurate numbers in front of me at the moment but my measurements have shown the maxxis tires to be narrower but taller than the others.

I have a 2.5 mobster and a FR mounted up at the moment and the casing width is the same 2.2 inches, knob to knob width the mob is 2.3 and the FR is 2.36.

Keep in mind this is on different rims, the FR is on a narrower rim, and I don't have the same air pressure in them either. Not sure what difference it makes, if I find where I wrote it down I'll correct it. But I think the narrower rim would make the tire taller and skinnier. The FR is the same height as the mob but putting it on the wider rim would make it lower. I remember this because I was surprised to find out how tall the maxxis run.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

take off almost a 1/5 inch and you are good


----------



## DHidiot (Aug 5, 2004)

Any Maxxis 2.7 will have almost exactly the same *tread width* as the Panaracer 2.4 (have both in front of me). The Maxxis might have a little more volume to the tire than the Panaracer, but the sideknobs on the Panaracer are pretty ridiculous so it comes off as really damned wide. Maxxis still sucks since they do run about .2"-.25" small.


----------



## steve owens (Apr 26, 2006)

I bought a set of 2.35 minion's off of the net and nearly laughed when they came in. I have been pleased so far, but come on Maxxis. They are really undersized.


----------



## MonkeyBidnezz (Jan 31, 2005)

Like the others have said, general rule is they are at least 1 size smaller compared to the others. The Pany is pretty huge though, my 2.4 is bigger than all of my 2.7 Maxxis tires. My 2.5 Nevy is close to the 2.7 Roller.


----------



## MonkeyBidnezz (Jan 31, 2005)

Like the others have said, general rule is they are at least 1 size smaller compared to the others. The Pany is pretty huge though, my 2.4 is bigger than all of my 2.7 Maxxis tires. My 2.5 Nevy is close to the 2.7 Roller.


----------



## MonkeyBidnezz (Jan 31, 2005)

Like the others have said, general rule is they are at least 1 size smaller compared to the others. The Pany is pretty huge though, my 2.4 is bigger than all of my 2.7 Maxxis tires. My 2.5 Nevy is close to the 2.7 Roller.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

MonkeyBidnezz said:


> Like the others have said, general rule is they are at least 1 size smaller compared to the others. The Pany is pretty huge though, my 2.4 is bigger than all of my 2.7 Maxxis tires. My 2.5 Nevy is close to the 2.7 Roller.


man deju vu ....................................:eekster: :eekster: 3 times


----------



## dirtydownhill (Aug 11, 2006)

My so called 2.5 inch Mobster is a little over 2.25. I just ordered a 2.7 with hopes that it will be a little over 2.5. It does seem pretty tall even on a wide rim. Its a super grippy tire down in the corners though.


----------



## rocketmanmtb1 (Feb 17, 2007)

my 2.35 high rollers are narrower than my 2.30 chunders


----------



## DHidiot (Aug 5, 2004)

2.3" Chunders are BIG 2.3" tires also. They're closer to a 2.5" anything else.


----------



## Rb (Feb 28, 2007)

steve owens said:


> I bought a set of 2.35 minion's off of the net and nearly laughed when they came in. I have been pleased so far, but come on Maxxis. They are really undersized.


what rim are you using? size/width?

just curious 'cause i'm looking at a set of minion DH's...


----------



## steve owens (Apr 26, 2006)

Ray Bao said:


> what rim are you using? size/width?
> 
> just curious 'cause i'm looking at a set of minion DH's...


I'm using a set of Azonic Outlaws.


----------



## airwreck (Dec 31, 2003)

okay, you guys made me go get all scientific. too bad I don't have a minion or high roller nearby at the moment so the mobster will have to do.
I mounted the FR and the mob on the same rims, filled them to the same pressure and used calipers to measure.
The casing width on the FR was 2.28 and the mobster was 2.2.
The full width knob to knob FR 2.56 mobster 2.37
So just sitting there the FR is wider.
since we are getting all @nal with these tens and hundreths of inches...
the casing on the mobster is a full tenth of an inch taller, which would mean that with a rider on the bike the tires footprint would actually increase more than than on the FR.

these measurements were taken on wtb laser dh rims.


----------



## suicidebomber (Feb 10, 2007)

Why does width matter? because of the bigger footprint of the tire? 

I am still waiting for my order for Minion 2.5 , but I have an old-school Tioga Psycho in front and a Maxxis Kraken at the rear. Both are 1.95s, but the Psycho looks more like a 2.0... and the Kraken does look smaller.


----------



## ColinBelisle (Oct 4, 2006)

so does a 2.35 kenda nevegal = 2.5 high roller?

colin


----------



## BFloFoxRider. (Dec 28, 2006)

yup
i used to have the 2.35 nevegals on my ac but now i got a 2.5 high roller inthe front and the treads look bigger but the tires look the same exact size to me


----------



## Speedwa (Oct 30, 2005)

airwreck said:


> okay, you guys made me go get all scientific. too bad I don't have a minion or high roller nearby at the moment so the mobster will have to do.
> I mounted the FR and the mob on the same rims, filled them to the same pressure and used calipers to measure.
> The casing width on the FR was 2.28 and the mobster was 2.2.
> The full width knob to knob FR 2.56 mobster 2.37
> ...


 I think the Mobster looks bigger than the Minion or the High Roller at the same 2.5 size mounted on the same rims.


----------



## airwreck (Dec 31, 2003)

I'm done measuring for today but I will say that there is something about the profile of the maxxis tires that I find addictive. When I try nevegals and blue grooves they just don't give me the stability, cornering confidence and hook up of the maxxis, maybe the kenda roll faster, but it sure feels nice when I get back on the maxxis.


----------



## airwreck (Dec 31, 2003)

Speedwa said:


> I think the Mobster looks bigger than the Minion or the High Roller at the same 2.5 size mounted on the same rims.


I'm pretty sure the casing is the same, but the mobster knobs could be bigger and wider.


----------



## Rb (Feb 28, 2007)

steve owens said:


> I'm using a set of Azonic Outlaws.


edit: nvm


----------



## ban (Jul 24, 2004)

I was wondering the same thing myself, Ive just ordered a 2,35 nevegal to be used as a front tire and I have a 2,5high roller laying around that I want to use it as a rear tire...I suppose until seeing both tires mounted on the rims I couldnt see the difference in volume between the tires... 


ColinBelisle said:


> so does a 2.35 kenda nevegal = 2.5 high roller?
> 
> colin


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

Generally speaking remove ~.2 from the width and yuo're gold.

That said, 2.5 Maxxis owns the world! lovin em! Too few 2.3's with a DH casing - I ride rocky monstrosities and I STILL dont want no massive balloon tires.

A 'real' 2.5 in front or Maxxis 2.7 is OK sometimes. Platte loves my 2.2 16s -- althugh they are ALMOST as wide as the Maxxis 2.5's.....


bah whatever - use tires that work, nomenclature be damned!


----------



## trailadvent (Jun 29, 2004)

Some observations.

I don't see the prob with tire width if there are plenty of size options! which is a prob with allot of other tire companies, esspecially in UST which be great to see more sizes in than just XC tires:madman: 2.0/2.1 urghh bigger please 2

If the Maxxis tire ya want is too small go up a size simple, 2.5 Maxxis for me have been no issue the size is right IMO so 2.5 2.7 ya can't really go too wrong.

Below are some pix of the Kenda Blue Groove 2.5, Kenda Nev 2.35 and Maxxis Minnion 3c 2.5 which is one of the best tires Ive run up front period.

The Kenda BG is slightly bigger than the Minion 2.5 
the Minion is slightly bigger than the Nev 2.35

The Minion feels bigger with more stability than the Nev I don't really notice any difference size wise with the BG the minion is better imo and rolls as fast if not faster corners better and has better grip and side wall stability, this BG is more light AM than DH or FR me Id take the Minion everytime.

Note the 2 Kenda's are Kevlar bead the Minion is a wire beaded triple compound tire so are designed for different applications to be fair to the Kenda's but Ive have the same tires in wire bead as well just my buddy has em on his bike, since hes too tight to get his own tires and I have a tire factory in the garage

I use the 2.35 on my trailbike but I have better tires for that now but its still a good tire.

The Minion is heavy but it dosen't ride heavy and is just a fantastic tire:thumbsup: keep heading this direction Maxxis your onto a good thing now just get more UST lust options out there as well and I'd be very happy.


----------



## DiscoGroovin (Sep 28, 2006)

I've always heard that Maxxis was smaller and my 2.35 Minions are more like a 2.1 or 2.2 but when I put some 2.7 Mobsters on they looked smaller than the Nokian 2.6 they replaced but when I measured them they were actually bigger. They measured just under 2-3/4" so it should be close to 2.7. It probably all depends on the rim unless they vary in size by batches?


----------



## calvinator (Feb 24, 2004)

I have run both tires stated in the original post on my kona stinky p and d's and I have a minion 2.7 on it now. They really are close, but the panaracer 2.4's rubbed my 04 super t pretty bad, whereas the minions don't.


----------



## suicidebomber (Feb 10, 2007)

If Maxxis 2.5s are more like 2.35s, then I would have followed what DeepSouthBuilder told me to stick with 2.35s on hardtail tire setup.

What about the Swampthing, then? I learned its a mud-spec DH tire, but is there a size discrepancy like what the Minion or the High Roller has?


----------



## uncle-mofo (Jul 14, 2006)

Cheers guys the guy who posted the pics up, props. I will probably get a 2.5 minion front and a 2.5 high roller out back. BTW front rim is a 729 and the rear rim is a Mag 30.


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

if you need to know the exact width, the ERTRO numbers (width in mm = millimeters) on Maxxis tires are much more realistic than the Inch numbers.

1 Inch = 25.4mm

For example, the 2.35" Minions have ERTRO 52-559 printed on them (52 is the width, 559 the rim diameter), which converts to around 2.1 Inches width. That is pretty close to the actual width. 

The Minion 2.5 is ERTRO 55-559, I measured mine at about 57-58mm on a singletrack rim. That's about 2.3 Inches.

Careful though. Maxxis seems to be fixing this discrepancy on their newer tires - the Advantage 2.4 is a little bit WIDER than a Minion 2.5!


----------



## trialsrookie (Nov 8, 2005)

True, the ADvantage is really a high volume tire compared to the 'old' lineup of Maxxis tires.

Btw, I wonder why no1 has mentioned shiggy's excellent homepage yet (...or did I miss something?):

http://www.mtbtires.com


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

Also consider that different people/mfrs take a different approach to these measurements.

EG - some are measuring the width of the casing, others the width of the tread/footprint.


----------



## uncle-mofo (Jul 14, 2006)

ok i just heard that a minion is actually intended for bone dry conditions? and the high roller is more of an intermediate condition tyre? is it true? if so il probably go dual high roller 2.5.


----------



## Huck Banzai (May 8, 2005)

Oh yah - for u mobster lovers - 

Jenson - Mobsters - 42a - 2.5=$13.50, 2.7=$10

Shipping (for me) winds up at about 8$ a tire, but that still puts em at 21.50/18 and thats still a sweet deal!\

Get em while they're hot - ordering 8 with a friend!


----------



## coghi (Jan 5, 2007)

pretty much, swamthings 2.5 are actually smaller than nokian nbx 2.3


----------



## 545cu4ch (Aug 11, 2005)

I have 2.5 Highroller and it is more or less the same as the WTB Motoraptor I had before. 
It does seem have a larger volume though...


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

Does anyone use the metric sizing numbers? For some strange reason these seem to actually be correct in comparing tire sizes, even across other brands. The metric number is the two digit number usually followed by the number "559". Those ugly red 2.5 Michelins for example are classified as 58-559. They are fairly large tires and are decently representative of what a 2.5 should be. When you look at that two digit number as a comparison of true sizing, IMO you get a much more realistic idea of size. Even many of these Maxxis tires will show some pretty small numbers like 52 or 54 when they're claiming 2.35-2.5 sized tires...which should really be around 56-58 for what most of us would say is a true 2.35-2.5 tire. Those real 2.7-3.0 tires are well into the 60's in the metric rating.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

I have a 2.5 Maxxis Minion DHF and I get the 2.5 real, maybe its because I'm using a Mavic Ex 729 rim which is very wide (29mm inside)


----------



## mtb_biker (Jan 27, 2004)

TNC said:


> Does anyone use the metric sizing numbers? For some strange reason these seem to actually be correct in comparing tire sizes, even across other brands. The metric number is the two digit number usually followed by the number "559". Those ugly red 2.5 Michelins for example are classified as 58-559. They are fairly large tires and are decently representative of what a 2.5 should be. When you look at that two digit number as a comparison of true sizing, IMO you get a much more realistic idea of size. Even many of these Maxxis tires will show some pretty small numbers like 52 or 54 when they're claiming 2.35-2.5 sized tires...which should really be around 56-58 for what most of us would say is a true 2.35-2.5 tire. Those real 2.7-3.0 tires are well into the 60's in the metric rating.


What are the metric numbers for Maxxis 2.35 / 2.5's? Kenda's?


----------



## lelebebbel (Jan 31, 2005)

*metric sizes*

excuse me for quoting my own post in the same thread...


lelebebbel said:


> if you need to know the exact width, the ERTRO numbers (width in mm = millimeters) on Maxxis tires are much more realistic than the Inch numbers.
> 
> 1 Inch = 25.4mm
> 
> ...


----------



## jezhkrider (Mar 22, 2006)

Is the key point here not " do they do the job you want them for?"

I am a Maxxis fan and run Minions F&R 2.5 on my DH Bike and a 2.35 DH Cased rear on my trail bike along with 2.5 HR's and 2.35HR's when the trail is drier. The trails here in HK are rocky and kill single ply tyres. I also have a 2,35 Nevgal UST on my 819 rims that are the light weight option for the trail bike. Its light and wide i agree, but the grip is nothing compared to the 42a Minion R when the rocks are green and the roots wet. I have a Nevegal DH Stick-E ready to try after the Minion R is dead. For me the single ply Nevegals are a puncture Magnet as are the Conti's. Have played with a few tyres but i go back to Maxxis again and again, i don't care if they are marginally thinner they do the job for me better than other products, and to me thats the crux of the matter.


----------

