Ride quality is wildly better. The bigger tires filter a _lot_ of the smaller cruft, enough that I can stay seated on most uphills if I want, and the Ranger doesn't hang up on anything on the downhills. Big confidence booster. Plus isn't a replacement for suspension, though; with my suspension locked out, big hits are still big hits. I don't yearn for a rigid.
Rolling resistance is higher, though I think as much from the wide rims as the tire width. This is unavoidable; a big contact patch rolls slower.
Acceleration isn't what it was. It's less about weight than the extra squish when I'm out of the saddle. Even with lockouts, the bike doesn't have the responsiveness it originally had, and this, I think, is also unavoidable. A friend's 27.5+ hardtail with 3" tires on both ends was much worse, much squishier. Keep the momentum up and the big tires flow beautifully, but sprints aren't as rewarding.
Some conclusions:
I like the split tire sizes. The smaller back wheel still gets hung up on hard edges on uphills, but that's about the only disadvantage (of this particular 2.5" tire) relative to 3" tire. I can unweight it on bigger obstacles, so I don't think extra rollover would outweigh the directness and reduced rolling resistance (on most terrain) from a smaller tire.
I don't like how much the 3" tire dulls the bike. I'm looking at switching the Ranger to a Nobby Nic 2.6 or a Tervail Cumberland 2.8 to get bigger side knobs and a more positive feel when I'm pushing hard. Absent that, I still prefer the existing configuration to the 2.35" and 2.1" tires I used previously.
I'm not sure if a smaller front tire would be faster. 29+ doesn't feel as fast, but that's deceptive when it's just rolling over things that smaller tires would hang on. TBD when the Ranger wears out enough to merit replacing.
Nov. 6, 2017, 2:23 p.m. - Alex D
Ride quality is wildly better. The bigger tires filter a _lot_ of the smaller cruft, enough that I can stay seated on most uphills if I want, and the Ranger doesn't hang up on anything on the downhills. Big confidence booster. Plus isn't a replacement for suspension, though; with my suspension locked out, big hits are still big hits. I don't yearn for a rigid. Rolling resistance is higher, though I think as much from the wide rims as the tire width. This is unavoidable; a big contact patch rolls slower. Acceleration isn't what it was. It's less about weight than the extra squish when I'm out of the saddle. Even with lockouts, the bike doesn't have the responsiveness it originally had, and this, I think, is also unavoidable. A friend's 27.5+ hardtail with 3" tires on both ends was much worse, much squishier. Keep the momentum up and the big tires flow beautifully, but sprints aren't as rewarding. Some conclusions: I like the split tire sizes. The smaller back wheel still gets hung up on hard edges on uphills, but that's about the only disadvantage (of this particular 2.5" tire) relative to 3" tire. I can unweight it on bigger obstacles, so I don't think extra rollover would outweigh the directness and reduced rolling resistance (on most terrain) from a smaller tire. I don't like how much the 3" tire dulls the bike. I'm looking at switching the Ranger to a Nobby Nic 2.6 or a Tervail Cumberland 2.8 to get bigger side knobs and a more positive feel when I'm pushing hard. Absent that, I still prefer the existing configuration to the 2.35" and 2.1" tires I used previously. I'm not sure if a smaller front tire would be faster. 29+ doesn't feel as fast, but that's deceptive when it's just rolling over things that smaller tires would hang on. TBD when the Ranger wears out enough to merit replacing.