Is Smaller Width Front Tire than Rear Tire size Efficient for Speed?
 

I have two tires for my bike. One is 1.75x26 and Other is 2.0x26.
DO I have more speed putting 1.75 on front and 2.0 size on rear?
since I am not a avid biker, I don't know smaller width tire on front or rear get more efficient for speed or not...

Is Smaller Width Front Tire than Rear Tire size Efficient forSpeed?
 

Op 20-2-2016 om 10:18 schreef Red Cloud:

I have two tires for my bike. One is 1.75x26 and Other is 2.0x26.
DO I have more speed putting 1.75 on front and 2.0 size on rear?
since I am not a avid biker, I don't know smaller width tire on front or rear get more efficient for speed or not...


It doesn't matter much if you are not riding at 40 km/hr. I put a
smaller tire always in the front because of less side wind sensitivity
and there is less weight on the front wheel.


Lou

Is Smaller Width Front Tire than Rear Tire size Efficient for Speed?
 

For efficiency, wider tire in the back. For "faster" steering, wider tire in front. Equal tires reckmmended for most cyclists on most bikes in
most places.

Andre Jute

Is Smaller Width Front Tire than Rear Tire size Efficient for Speed?
 

Per Andre Jute:
For efficiency, wider tire in the back. For "faster" steering, wider tire in front.

And, for the mentally-challenged like myself who have trouble
remembering which type of bike they are on, a slightly-wider mild knobby
on the front cuts down on the face plants when I forget and jump a curb
up on to a canted grassy slope.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

Is Smaller Width Front Tire than Rear Tire size Efficient for Speed?
 

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 1:08:43 PM UTC, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Andre Jute:
For efficiency, wider tire in the back. For "faster" steering, wider tire in front.

And, for the mentally-challenged like myself who have trouble
remembering which type of bike they are on, a slightly-wider mild knobby
on the front cuts down on the face plants when I forget and jump a curb
up on to a canted grassy slope.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

Heh-heh. As you and Lou hint, mixed tyres are for special purposes, almost by definition extreme.

I think most cyclists are better off with the same tyres (size, type, inflation with reference to load) front and rear.

Bikes are designed to give the intended handling results with the same tyres front and rear. If you assume that bike designers are competent (many are over their heads in this sort of discussion -- their expertise is fitting up standard pipes), or at least that the wisdom of a century is sound, then the best rule is for amateurs, newbies and the vast majority of riders to stick to what is proven. which is generally what comes on the bike ex-factory.

All the same, I notice that when I swap the smoothly worn rear Big Apple to the front on my Kranich and put the very lightly treaded tyre on the rear (1), the steering becomes an appreciable fraction sharper at high speeds (40kph and up) on the downhills of my twisting lanes. Of course, with that it also becomes more nervous, more likely to be upset by road irregularities, less impervious to potholes upsetting the bike's direction, more demanding of skill and concentration on the part of the cyclist, more sensitive to overcorrection, and more likely to throw you off, just that fraction less safe than the understeering norm I usually have it set up for of taking these highspeed downhills pretty casually. It really doesn't take much messing around at the road/tire interface to disturb a superbly designed and proven bike's hitherto irresistable momentum, and of course correspondingly less to upset some of the horrors coming out of Taiwan.

Be smarter for most cyclists to experiment within narrow margins with the front/rear tyre inflation.

Andre Jute

(1) This is counterintuitive to most cyclists, who falsely believe that tread equals traction. On tarmac, which describes even the smallest lane I ride, what I am in effect doing by swapping tyres is to increase the coefficient of friction at the front and reduce it at the rear, thus nudging my bike from forgiving understeer towards a more nervy neutral steering dynamic, a place where no sane rider ever wants actually to arrive.

Is Smaller Width Front Tire than Rear Tire size Efficient for Speed?
 

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 01:18:39 -0800 (PST), Red Cloud
wrote:


I have two tires for my bike. One is 1.75x26 and Other is 2.0x26.
DO I have more speed putting 1.75 on front and 2.0 size on rear?
since I am not a avid biker, I don't know smaller width tire on front or rear get more efficient for speed or not...

Only a comment but, generally speaking, the load on the rear wheel is
about 55% of the total bike & rider weight while the front wheel
supports the remaining 45%.

You might want to read Sheldon Brown's, considered by most as the
"last word" on bicycles, treatise on tires at:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tyres.html
--
cheers,

John B.

Is Smaller Width Front Tire than Rear Tire size Efficientfor Speed?
 

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 4:18:43 AM UTC-5, Red Cloud wrote:
I have two tires for my bike. One is 1.75x26 and Other is 2.0x26.
DO I have more speed putting 1.75 on front and 2.0 size on rear?
since I am not a avid biker, I don't know smaller width tire on front or rear get more efficient for speed or not...

LARGER FRONT WITH MORE RUBBER FOR BETTER TURN IN/STABILITY

weight is based to the rear so a larger front compensates...in dirt or rain/snow

on a given course of normal turns n straights prob nor but on one long straight maybe see a difference. The TdF time trials try for that gain....does it win ? I dunno that would require statistical analysis. Maybe unavailable.