# Minion DHF 2.7 or 2.5?



## tiSS'er (Jan 6, 2004)

Guys,

Hoping to get some feedback. I have been running DHFs forever. I run a 2.35 42a/60 on the 5 Spot and a 2.7 3C/2.5 60a on my Highline. I recently purchased a new 2.5 for the rear, and now I am considering a 2.5 3C for the front. My thought is that the 2.5 has a tighter tread pattern, better supported side knobs (not that I have that issue with the 2.7), and in theory should shred better due to the above comments. 

I have always subscribed to a larger front tire, but when looking at the dead spot between the center knobs and the side on the 2.7, I seem to think that the 2.5 will have less "float" gettng to the side knobs. BTW I am running Mavic 823s.

So, before I spent a bunch of money on a new tire, I would appreciate some feedback. 2.5, or should I stick with what I know and buy a 2.7?

Thanks!


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

Most conditions a 2.5 front is all thats needed. :thumbsup:


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

Keep in mind that Minions, relative to other companies' DH tires, are a size smaller than the nominal size. In other words, a 2.7" Minion has the same width and weight as a 2.5" tire from Kenda, WTB, Intense, etc. (Actually, the 2.7" Minion is slightly narrower and lighter than many 2.5" tires, in my experience.)

It may seem difficult to accept a 2.7" tire, but a (claimed) 1390 g tire with 59 mm casing width is what it is, regardless of whether the sidewall says 2.5" or 2.7". For comparison, Maxxis claims the 2.5" Minion measures 55 mm at the casing.

I'm usually happy with a combination of 2.7" front and 2.5" rear when using Maxxis tires, though I'll mount a 2.5" on the front for smooth or less challenging trails. I've never had problems with the gap between the centre and side lugs on the 2.7".

My feeling is that very few people are so skilled on a bike that weight and rolling resistance are more important factors than traction and control. If I can get more traction, control, and comfort from a larger tire at slightly lower pressure, then I'll have more fun and ride faster for it. For what it's worth, I run 140 g cross-country tubes to offset the mass of burly tires.


----------



## pmrider (Mar 14, 2008)

I would say 2.5 unless you need more of a meatball


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

pmrider said:


> I would say 2.5 unless you need more of a meatball


That's a perfectly valid suggestion, but here's my point, phrased another way:

Most people recommend the 2.5" Minion. The same people usually recommend a 2.5" Intense, Michelin, WTB, Kenda, Specialized, etc. You rarely see a recommendation for a 2.35" tire for true downhill applications, yet the 2.5" Minion (or High Roller) is the same size and weight as a 2.35" in another brand. Therefore, suggesting a 2.5" Minion is essentially the same as suggesting a 2.35" in any other brand.


----------



## C S (Sep 26, 2007)

R-M-R said:


> Keep in mind that Minions, relative to other companies' DH tires, are a size smaller than the nominal size. In other words, a 2.7" Minion has the same width and weight as a 2.5" tire from Kenda, WTB, Intense, etc. (Actually, the 2.7" Minion is slightly narrower and lighter than many 2.5" tires, in my experience.)
> 
> It may seem difficult to accept a 2.7" tire, but a (claimed) 1390 g tire with 59 mm casing width is what it is, regardless of whether the sidewall says 2.5" or 2.7". For comparison, Maxxis claims the 2.5" Minion measures 55 mm at the casing.
> 
> ...


Very true, DHFs seem pretty small for the claimed size. I went from a 2.5 DHF to a 2.7 this year and there is a noticeable increase in traction. If you haven't had a problem with your current setup, I wouldn't change to a smaller tire to solve a problem that doesn't exist


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

2.5 DHF 3C measures 2.38 knob to knob, the carcass is 2.124  

WTB Dissent 2.5 measures 2.54 knob to knob, carcass 2.351


----------



## Mr. Blonde (May 18, 2008)

R-M-R said:


> That's a perfectly valid suggestion, but here's my point, phrased another way:
> 
> Most people recommend the 2.5" Minion. The same people usually recommend a 2.5" Intense, Michelin, WTB, Kenda, Specialized, etc. You rarely see a recommendation for a 2.35" tire for true downhill applications, yet the 2.5" Minion (or High Roller) is the same size and weight as a 2.35" in another brand. Therefore, suggesting a 2.5" Minion is essentially the same as suggesting a 2.35" in any other brand.


Uhhhh no. Without bringing the casing construction/thickness into the equation your comparison is completely pointless.

Go with a 2.5"
2.7" in a DHF is WAY overkill.

Also: everyone should just quit with the nonsense about Maxxis running small. I mounted a 2.5 Minion and a 2.5 Nevegal on EX823s and measured them knob to knob with digital calipers. The Minion was 2.48 and the Nevegal was 2.49. There are obviously going to be batch differences but it's an illusion for god's sake. Quit making it a deciding factor in tire purchases.


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

Mr. Blonde said:


> Uhhhh no. Without bringing the casing construction/thickness into the equation your comparison is completely pointless.
> 
> Go with a 2.5"
> 2.7" in a DHF is WAY overkill.
> ...


Okay, I'll bring casing construction/thickness into the equation.

A Maxxis 2.7" DH tire with 2 plys of 60 tpi casing is the same size and weight as a 2.5" Kenda DH tire with 2 plys of 60 tpi casing. A Maxxis 2.7" DH tire with 2 plys of 60 tpi casing is also the same size and weight as a 2.5" WTB DH tire with 2 plys of 30 tpi casing.

Repeat as necessary for other brands' 2.5" DH tires.

There is no universal standard for tire measurement and labeling. WTB attempted to standardize things with their GMS - an excellent approach, by the way - but it didn't really catch on. Without a standard, companies can scribble any size they like on the side of their tires. This has been a problem with road tires for decades, where companies claim a tire is wider than it really is as a way to artificially claim to have made a lighter tire. Similarly, Maxxis, IRC, and Continental used to be famous for wildly exaggerating the width of their tires. Many new Maxxis tires - the Ardent, for one example - are reversing this trend, but the Minion and High Roller are holdovers from Maxxis' era of exaggeration.

Now that we've put some facts to the argument, can we please resume calling the Minion and High Roller mislabeled?


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

R-M-R)
Now that we've put some facts to the argument said:


> So the reason why Maxis tires win championships is because their tires actually work and not because of a number. :thumbsup:


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

dogonfr said:


> So the reason why Maxis tires win championships is because their tires actually work and not because of a number. :thumbsup:


It's true, the laws of physics take very little interest in the numbers and logos on the sidewalls of our tires.

It's also true that the world's top riders are more skilled than the rest of us at playing with the laws of physics, which is why I recommend the rest of us use more powerful tools, such as fat tires.

For most riders, a 2.5" Minion is an excellent choice...but a 2.7" Minion may be an even better choice. It's never _necessary_ - it may not even be the better choice - but it's not as radical a suggestion as the "2.7"" designation makes it seem.


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

Funny It was suggested to me by a pro rider 2.35 rear and 2.5 front. So why do pros black out the words Maxxis on their tires?


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

dogonfr said:


> Funny It was suggested to me by a pro rider 2.35 rear and 2.5 front.


If the pro was referring to any brand other than Maxxis, then this suggestion is equivalent to a 2.7" F, 2.5" R set-up on Minions or High Rollers and is common for non-Maxxis riders. If it referred to Minions or High Rollers, then that's a less common set-up, but would make sense for a smooth or non-technical course.



dogonfr said:


> So why do pros black out the words Maxxis on their tires?


People say money makes the world go 'round, but the laws of physics take the expression rather more literally. The logos say (or don't say) whatever is necessary to satisfy the former, but the tire itself is chosen to appease the latter.


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

R-M-R said:


> If the pro was referring to any brand other than Maxxis, then this suggestion is equivalent to a 2.7" F, 2.5" R set-up on Minions or High Rollers and is common for non-Maxxis riders. If it referred to Minions or High Rollers, then that's a less common set-up, but would make sense for a smooth or non-technical course.
> 
> People say money makes the world go 'round, but the laws of physics take the expression rather more literally. The logos say (or don't say) whatever is necessary to satisfy the former, but the tire itself is chosen to appease the latter.


Depends on terrain, conditions & rider needs. :thumbsup:

Sharpie makes the world go around. :thumbsup:


----------



## mrpercussive (Apr 4, 2006)

R-M-R said:


> If the pro was referring to any brand other than Maxxis, then this suggestion is equivalent to a 2.7" F, 2.5" R set-up on Minions or High Rollers and is common for non-Maxxis riders. If it referred to Minions or High Rollers, then that's a less common set-up, but would make sense for a smooth or non-technical course.
> 
> People say money makes the world go 'round, but the laws of physics take the expression rather more literally. The logos say (or don't say) whatever is necessary to satisfy the former, but the tire itself is chosen to appease the latter.


I think you need to read those replies again...


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

I've tried both and prefer the 2.5. It bites more while the 2.7 floats more. I guess it depends on terrain, but the 2.5 is my clear preference riding in CO.


----------



## gurp (Jan 20, 2004)

If you have two tires - same tread pattern and tire pressure; the only difference being the width:

The larger tire will give you more grip on hard surfaces due to increased area that friction is being applied to. However, because you've increased weight dispersion, on softer surfaces you'll get less traction. For example - on wet surfaces it will be easier to hydroplane. 

So, the smaller tire will tend to give you more grip on soft surfaces. The larger tire will give you more grip on hard surfaces.


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

mrpercussive said:


> I think you need to read those replies again...


Or you could stop being coy and explain what you mean.

I do see Mr. Blonde's claim to have measured a 2.5" Minion and 2.5" Nevegal and found the widths to be similar, but that's somewhat misleading: The Minion has a much smaller volume and the Nevegal's side knobs don't hang especially far off the edge of the casing. Also, those measurements disagree with my own experience, but I'll take his word for those being the numbers produced by his own equipment. dogonfr's measurement of a 2.5" Minion and 2.5" WTB Dissent is more typical.

If we want to get back to the thread starter's questions, then I'll reiterate my points and add a couple new ones:

1. I don't find the 2.7" Minion has excessive drift between the centre and side knobs. If tiSS'er feels it does, then the 2.5" won't be dramatically different, if at all. Instead, he could consider an Intense Invader (formerly "DH") or 909, Kenda Excavator, or WTB Prowler MX.

2. I don't find the 2.5" Minion has better side knob support than the 2.7". The 3C compound addresses that issue very well.

3. For most full-on DH trails, I prefer a 2.7" Minion on the front, though I use a 2.5" on the front for less burly trails.


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

It always comes back to the nut holding the handle bar. :thumbsup:


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

dogonfr said:


> It always comes back to the nut holding the handle bar. :thumbsup:


Sure, but you might as well try to find the best tool for the job.


----------



## Iggz (Nov 22, 2006)

2.5" DHF 3C is where it's at

2.7" is just retarded, old-school-hucking-**** tire status


----------



## idrivefun (Mar 31, 2009)

R-M-R said:


> Okay, I'll bring casing construction/thickness into the equation.
> 
> Now that we've put some facts to the argument, can we please resume calling the Minion and High Roller mislabeled?


Agreed... I love Maxxis, and have then all my bikes for all applications, but EVERY model I have (Minion, Highroller, Ignitor) run at least a size smaller than what's printed on a the sidewall... don't make me snap a pic of my digital caliper's reading :nono:


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

idrivefun said:


> Agreed... I love Maxxis, and have then all my bikes for all applications, but EVERY model I have (Minion, Highroller, Ignitor) run at least a size smaller than what's printed on a the sidewall... don't make me snap a pic of my digital caliper's reading :nono:


Which is what he has said on every post.


----------



## idrivefun (Mar 31, 2009)

dogonfr said:


> Which is what he has said on every post.


Huh? Seemed Mr. Blonde was saying Maxxis run small... lay off the sauce!!


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

idrivefun said:


> Huh? Seemed Mr. Blonde was saying Maxxis run small... lay off the sauce!!


Which is true, oh ya you quoted R-M-R, the sauce is good. :rockon:


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

ilikemybike011 said:


> 2.5" DHF 3C is where it's at
> 
> 2.7" is just retarded, old-school-hucking-**** tire status


I'm sure those 2.1" Minions (as measured by dogonfr) are perfect for your M6 on terrain that doesn't even require a bashguard. 

Seriously, though, dismissing a 2.7" Minion as being an old school hucker is the same as dismissing a 2.5" from any other brand. Do you think every Michelin, Kenda, WTB, Intense, Specialized, etc. rider should be on 2.3" tires? If not - i.e. if you see nothing old school about 2.5" tires from those brands - then there's nothing old school about a 2.7" Minion or High Roller.

It's the tire's actual dimensions that matter, not what's written on the side. I could hot-patch a size rating of 3.0" onto the side of a cyclocross tire, but that doesn't make it an old school hucker. Similarly, Maxxis can write 2.7" on the side of tires that actually measure 2.5" (or less), but that ink doesn't make the tire an old school hucker.

If you prefer a 2.5" Minion for your trails, then that's what's best for you. For rough trails, I prefer the 2.7" on the front; for smooth ones, I prefer the 2.5". When I'm running my WTBs or Intenses, I don't go above 2.5".

If we were talking about a Kenda 2.8", then that would be a different story. As much as I like fat tires, even I think those are excessive.


----------



## Iggz (Nov 22, 2006)

Ride with me sometime.

Put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

And where, exactly, is my mouth? Point out one thing I said that can't be backed up by facts and I'll take it back. Until then, put your brain where your mouth is.


----------



## Iggz (Nov 22, 2006)

Hmmm.... 

If you used your brain you might have been able to tell I have 2mm of clearance between my spider and boomerang...

If you used your brain a bit more you could have noticed I ran a Carbon MRP prior

If you used it even a tad bit more you would realize I hit my chain ring on **** all the time and I couldn't give less of a ****.


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

ilikemybike011 said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> If you used your brain you might have been able to tell I have 2mm of clearance between my spider and boomerang...
> 
> ...


I'll go easy on you because I know how fragile young egos can be - clearly too much so to take a little joke.

This thread isn't about who's the better rider. I'm sure you're perfectly competent on a bike and you certainly throw enough money at your bikes to "prove" it, so let's try to set the internet-tough-guy approach aside and stick to the quantifiable aspects of tire selection in this thread.


----------



## Iceman2058 (Mar 1, 2007)

R-M-R said:


> That's a perfectly valid suggestion, but here's my point, phrased another way:
> 
> Most people recommend the 2.5" Minion. The same people usually recommend a 2.5" Intense, Michelin, WTB, Kenda, Specialized, etc. You rarely see a recommendation for a 2.35" tire for true downhill applications, yet the 2.5" Minion (or High Roller) is the same size and weight as a 2.35" in another brand. Therefore, suggesting a 2.5" Minion is essentially the same as suggesting a 2.35" in any other brand.


This is the answer to the whole thread. You cannot get any more logical than that. It is impossible to argue anything else.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

gurp said:


> If you have two tires - same tread pattern and tire pressure; the only difference being the width:
> 
> The larger tire will give you more grip on hard surfaces due to increased area that friction is being applied to. However, because you've increased weight dispersion, on softer surfaces you'll get less traction. For example - on wet surfaces it will be easier to hydroplane.
> 
> So, the smaller tire will tend to give you more grip on soft surfaces. The larger tire will give you more grip on hard surfaces.


Yup, but the 2.5 gives good grip on hard surfaces while the 2.7 seems like a bigger compromise on softer stuff. The 2.7 might be better in sand or snow...

A couple years ago, switching from 2.7 to 2.5 Minions made a HUGE difference in how fast I was. One of my friends asked why he wasn't having to wait for me anymore


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

davec113 said:


> Yup, but the 2.5 gives good grip on hard surfaces while the 2.7 seems like a bigger compromise on softer stuff. The 2.7 might be better in sand or snow...
> 
> A couple years ago, switching from 2.7 to 2.5 Minions made a HUGE difference in how fast I was. One of my friends asked why he wasn't having to wait for me anymore


Looks like it depends on the terrain. Fat tires at lower pressure than would be required with narrow tires work nicely for me on hard surfaces with lots of rocks and roots and on loose trails where the loose material is coarse, which are common conditions on the trails I ride. I'm sure we're all making recommendations that are heavily influenced by our local trail conditions.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

What one would be better for wet, slime covered roots?


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

006_007 said:


> What one would be better for wet, slime covered roots?


Neither! A true mud spike would be best, but the Minion does remarkably well in wet conditions for a tire that's also excellent in the dry. You definitely want a narrow tire in the wet, so go with the 2.5" if you require the double casing construction of a proper DH tire. If you're running single-ply, then more options are available.

I've read that Maxxis' 42a SuperTacky compound is better in the wet than their 40a Slow Reezay or 3C compounds, but I don't ride in mud often enough to be a connoisseur of mud compounds.


----------



## dogonfr (Jan 6, 2005)

Dont get allot of wet root N rock here in GnarCal but the Minion Highroller combo is hard to beat as a all around combo. :thumbsup:


----------



## juan pablo (Jan 17, 2007)

Does the 2.5HR run the same size as the minion 2.5? I havent run a HR in 18 months and cant remember the size. I just picked up a UST HR for ghetto toobless with a compromise for side wall strength of the single and double ply, also hoping it would be mid weight too. The single ply was not available in 42A for a front tyre on my hardtail. Didnt save much weight and when I fitted it with a tube it came in smaller than my 2.35 minion and 2.25 advantage, by a fair bit. I dont want to set it up ghetto till february when I get back from vacation as the stans will pool for a month. I am wondering if the size is due to the tube preventing it from seating correctly?
I am looking forward to going 3C minion front with a high roller rear.


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

juan pablo said:


> Does the 2.5HR run the same size as the minion 2.5?


I haven't mounted and measured my High Roller and Minion to compare, but they do look about the same size when mounted. Companies like to simplify the manufacturing process, so it would make sense for Maxxis to use the same casing for both. The knob-to-knob width probably varies a little, due to the tread pattern.

The ADvantage is a newer design and is more true to the nominal width - i.e. it's a lot fatter for a given size designation, much like the new Ardent.


----------



## mountains (Apr 10, 2009)

R-M-R said:


> And where, exactly, is my mouth?QUOTE]
> 
> Between your nose and your chin.


----------



## highroller (Apr 26, 2004)

juan pablo said:


> Does the 2.5HR run the same size as the minion 2.5? ....


That's the usual tire setup on my bike. The HR looked bigger so I measured them both with calipers and they were the same.

If the 2.7 had 2.5 printed on the sidewall everyone would want it... if the 2.5 had 2.35 on it, everyone would say it's too small.

11 is far too loud for a guitar amp, 10 is enough.


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

highroller said:


> That's the usual tire setup on my bike. The HR looked bigger so I measured them both with calipers and they were the same.
> 
> If the 2.7 had 2.5 printed on the sidewall everyone would want it... if the 2.5 had 2.35 on it, everyone would say it's too small.
> 
> 11 is far too loud for a guitar amp, 10 is enough.


Amen, brother. Amen.


----------



## Mr. Blonde (May 18, 2008)

idrivefun said:


> Huh? Seemed Mr. Blonde was saying Maxxis run small... lay off the sauce!!


By .02 on an EX823. YMMV.


----------



## Nagaredama (Aug 2, 2004)

Are you running the non-UST Maxxis tires tubeless on your 823's? Any problems getting the beads to seat?


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

2.5 for more turning...you get on edges easier/faster when leaning bike
2.7 more traction


----------



## R-M-R (Jan 26, 2009)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> 2.5 for more turning...you get on edges easier/faster when leaning bike
> 2.7 more traction


I use identical tires in both sizes and I've never obsverved anything resembling an ability to get on the edges easier or faster with the narrower tire. I'm not meaning to come across as hostile, I'm just saying this statement isn't supported by my experience or, as far as I can reason out, the physics of the situation. The difference in width is trivial, relative to the displacement of the contact patch under the rider's centre of mass during a direction change, and the side lugs are positioned at a similar angle on the side of the tire.

The extra 200g of a 2.7" Minion does make itself felt on trails that require a lot of rider input, such as rough trails that involve a lot of wheel deflection, quick wheel placement, and quick hops over little gaps and holes. On the other hand, this is also the type of terrain on which the lower pressure that can be used with a fat tire is especially welcome.


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

R-M-R said:


> I use identical tires in both sizes and I've never obsverved anything resembling an ability to get on the edges easier or faster with the narrower tire. e.


it more obvious going from the 2.5's to 2.35....I would assume that the same for 2.7' to 2.5's...I don't run 2.7 maxxi tires ever


----------



## gurp (Jan 20, 2004)

A more practical answer -

Steep loose rocky gnar - 2.7s are great.

Everywhere else - 2.5s are fine.


----------



## 69nites (Aug 20, 2008)

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:


> it more obvious going from the 2.5's to 2.35....I would assume that the same for 2.7' to 2.5's...I don't run 2.7 maxxi tires ever


That's a matter of rim width/tire width. how wide are your rims?


----------



## ccspecialized (Dec 30, 2008)

Experiment:
Measure the "true" width of different tires and compare to "claimed" width.

Process:
I measured each tire on an outlaw rim, inflated to 33 psi using the same pump. Each tire was measured with the same vernier caliper. I rounded to 2 decimal places because that is what the manufacturer measures to. I live at 4,480ft above sea level. 

Here are the results:
"2.5 Intense 909 FRO" (33 psi--outlaw rims)
2.52 knob to knob.
2.30 outer casing to casing

"2.7 Minion DH UST 3C" (33psi--outlaw rims)
2.40 knob to knob. 
2.10 outer casing to casing

"2.35 Intense DH Dual Ply" (33psi--outlaw rims)
2.48 knob to knob
2.00 outer casing to casing

"2.35 Minion DHF Singly Ply super tacky" (33psi--outlaw rims)
2.04 knob to knob
1.96 outer casing to casing

Analysis:
The Knob to Knob measurement doesn't give the most accurate result, because tread patterns differ greatly. Although from this you can tell that the 2.5 intense is larger on both measurements than the 2.7 maxxis. The 2.35 maxxis is of course the smallest tire measured, being much smaller than the 2.35 intense knob to knob and also much smaller casing. I don't have a 2.5 Minion to measure. I would assume that it is smaller knob to knob than the 2.35 intense, but similar casing size. 
Conclusion:
It is safe to say that maxxis tires "claimed" width is smaller than the "claimed" width of an equal size other brand tire. To further this experiment it is necessary to measure other tire brands such as Kenda, Michelin, etc.


----------



## Tim F. (May 22, 2006)

Instead of measuring the tire, try measuring the imprint (track), or contact area. A tires width increases when it compersses against the ground, some brands more than others. Try running a wet tire over a dry surface (ashalt, or concrete), and measure the width of the track it leaves behind.


----------



## ccspecialized (Dec 30, 2008)

Lower the tire pressure and you will get a wider path no matter what kind of tire (bike, car, f*cking segway). 

Also measuring all the tires at the same pressure, same rim offers each tire an equal opportunity. Maxxis tires aren't as wide as equivalent labeled other equal branded tires. If you like a maxxis 2.5 more than a kenda 2.5? Go eat a cookie, you're a big boy too


----------



## JSUN (Jun 22, 2004)

Ive noticed 2.7 fronts not only increase tracion, but the wider footprint acts as a steerting damper - the ability to hold a straight line through rough rocky sections is increased with a wider tire up front. It's also noticeable when riding out a stright line after a drop. Better straight line tracking for me all around with 2.7 front. This combination works great for me: Maxxis Minion DHF on both front and rear (yes front tire on rear in original rotational direction) 2.7 front 2.5 rear.


----------

