[Here’s the product matrix chart from Continental](https://images.singletracks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/con-gravity-periodictable-a3-03-2022-data-2048×1448.png)
In the Kryptotal range, the rears are available as 2.4 or 2.6, while the front is only in 2.4. I thought the general rule is to have the wider, grippier tire up front, but here Continental is basically making that impossible. Is there a good reason why?
by degggendorf
4 Comments
Seems logical. If 27.5 or 29″ both ends.
But, let’s talk mullets. There’s a Java full-suss bike sold mullet, with a smaller tyre in the front. I’ve actually done this with one of my mullet full-suss trail bikes. The advantage of a bike tyre on a 27.5″ perhaps almost matched by the advantages of being a 29″ (lighter tyre) rolling over stuff. I don’t notice much depreciation.
It’s a weird decision for sure. I found that the tires are great, but the small size of the 2.4 completely put me off. I much prefer a larger tire in the front for balancing pressure and tire response/stiffness, but that isn’t an issue in the rear. I prefer a slightly smaller one with a stiffer carcass and a higher pressure.
Probably because most of the weight is on the rear tire.
It’s because e-bikes.