Exactly my experience. Used a 2.7 for a while (I'm usually a fan of big tires) and then switched to a 2.5. It rolled faster, weighed less and was a bit more precise sometimes. Yeah, it didn't ride as soft, but it wasn't that much of a difference.2.5 front & rear
didnt find the need to run any bigger up the front
intially started with a 2.7 up front but found that 2.5
has more than enough grip
Is that a challange? I use 2.7 F&R.Nobody fast uses a 2.7 Maxxis.
I'm up for it.Is that a challange? I use 2.7 F&R.
America's latest hope, Aaron Gwin has admitted to using 2.7's up front.Nobody fast uses a 2.7 Maxxis.
A Michi 2.5 is a bit smaller than a Maxxis 2.7 BUT - here's where the details come into play: a lot of riders find that Maxxis rubber compounds are super grippy and with the advent of the new 3C triple rubber compound (40a center / 42a side lugs with a 70a base to keep the knobs/lugs in better shape - less prone to folding, getting squishy, etc. The 3C also wears much better than say a pure 40a SRY "Slow-REezay" compound) more than adequate. SO because Maxxis rubber compounds work so well for a lot of riders, running a 2.7 race compound (42a, 40a, 3C) is a bit of overkill for certain tracks. A 2.5 can grip just as well as a 2.7 on the flats - but don't forget the advantages of a 2.7 as I mentioned above. It depends on the individual really. If you are smooth, or don't weight much - then get a 2.5 for the rocky stuff... if not try a 2.7.in relation to a Michelin 2.5...how big is the Maxxis 2.7 amd 2.5?
i'm switching to Maxxis from Michelin next year, and trying to figure out if i should be going 2.7 or 2.5 in front. i ran DH24 2.5 front and rear this year.
SKC - your reply pretty me convinced me im switching, just now wondering how big the difference the Maxxis is to the Michelin
Well I checked MBA: june 2005 and there is a Sam Hill Bike check.Nobody fast uses a 2.7 Maxxis.