Maxxis DHF - the Resurrection

Nothing feeds the piranha pool that is mountain bike content like a Maxxis Minion DHF review. After 21 years in existence, the winningest tire of all time has finally reached the age where it can proudly whip out its ID. When Colin Bailey scribbled the first draft of arguably the tire world's most successful pattern onto a napkin, he might have had aspirations as to how good it was going to be. But as the story goes, the outcome was not in his favour. He did however pave the way towards a tread pattern (and eventually the right compounds) that at one time would dress just about all bikes across shop floors in Maxxis colours. The DHF was so popular that even a semi-casual rider could pick out its tread pattern imprinted in the dirt at a glance.

That all changed when Maxxis' new, odd-sounding model was released - the Assegai. Billed as the successor to the DHF (and to a lesser extent, the DHR), the Assegai really could outdo everything the DHF was good at and more. Except for rolling fast.

This is where things got interesting.

On the slippery roots and granite of the North Shore mountains, the confidence the new Assegai provided was undeniable. Sure it was like riding through cold honey when it came to pedalling the bike up to the top, but the price was worth the admission. Slowly but surely, people started switching.

The Minion DHF was initially designed for rims with an internal width of 23-25mm. The tread pattern was tighter than the current tire's design, and the carcass was always round. As rims got wider and started hitting the 30mm mark, the tire too had to evolve. Tread blocks got bigger and wider apart so that wider rims wouldn’t square off the tire too much and expose the sidewall to the elements. The DHF had changed with the times.

Around 2018, Scott started selling its Genius with 29 x 2.6” DHFs that were sleepers. These higher volume tires gave the 150mm travel bike with conservative geometry an edge over the competition when it came to trail manners. The DHF was holding on to its reign on the OEM market as hard as it could but it wasn’t enough - people wanted more traction and tougher tires. At a width of 2.6” a DD or DH casing tire would tip the scales at well over 1,500 grams and that just wouldn’t fly with anyone. The 2.5" Assegai quickly started to win the spec and aftermarket civil war.

The DHF has always been on the back of my mind. Even when I made friends with the Santa Cruz Hightower and fell right in love with the front and rear DHR II combo, I kept wondering if there was still a place for the DHF and where that would be.

DHF always pedaled well - better than the DHR II, Assegai and Highroller. It wasn’t until the Dissector came on the scene that we had a better pedaling option from Maxxis that could also be run as a front tire in certain circumstances. What I found surprising was how the DHR II made a better front tire than the DHF. On faster, flowier trails it wandered around for traction but as soon as the bike was upright and trails got steep, the paddles would generate noticeably more grab than those on the DHF.

Poor DHF, its use cases were narrowing like a one-lane bridge. Not knowing who should go first, I wanted to keep the legendary tire relevant to my use case.

When the Scor 2030 was delivered to my door with a Dissector front and Rekon rear tire, I knew that combination wasn’t going to help the bike shine on the trails and surfaces where I wanted to take it. Being a tread that pedals well, the Dissector went on the rear and the DHF MaxxTerra Exo+ I had laying around took over the steering duties up front.

This gave me an idea to test out the performance of the DHF as a short travel bike tire. With its 140mm travel fork and 64.5º head angle, the Scor is not a classic short travel example, but as trail bikes move in the direction of slacker head angles, this experiment will only become more relevant. The DHF on the front made the bike sing with traction and stability and there wasn’t a huge weight or rolling resistance penalty to be paid for the tire swap. I wanted to see if the DHF made sense in a certain window of suspension travel or if the quality of riding it provided was consistence regardles of the intended use case of the bike it was mounted on.

So we got Maxxis to send out a DHF in 3C MaxxGrip DD to go on a We Are One Union wheel I had. The wheel got a 203mm rotor from Galfer and two bikes were set up to be able to accept the wheel without too much faffing. The Scor could use the rotor upgrade anyways as it liked to go fast and 203mm rotors would help tame that speedwagon.

The other bike was my very own Orbea Rallon - a longer travel test mule with a 170mm fork and 168mm of rear wheel travel thanks to a slightly longer shock than stock. The Rallon sits at a 64-degree head angle - just half a degree slacker than the Scor with its 140mm front and 120mm rear travel. With the reach and stack numbers extremely close to one another, the influence of the front tire should be obvious, I thought.

Spoiler: it was.

To even the playing field further, I also put a Dissector rear tire on the Rallon but later found out that this had far less influence on the overall differences than I thought. Although having a fast tire on the back of the big rig after lugging a DH casing Continental around was a treat. This might be a permanent change for the summer...

The SCOR is such an energetic pedaler that the additional weight of the DD MaxxGrip tires was not very noticeable. Paired with the WR1 rims, the total weight of the front wheel was within a few grams of the DT Swiss XM 1700 and the Exo+.

The actual change to pay attention to would be the DHF on the front of the Rallon. For the past year and change, Continental Kryptotals in Super Soft DH casing have been feeding the bike with an immense amount of capability. The support and mechanical traction has been unparalleled by anything in my previous experience. Sure, the Assegais were excellent, but the whole package of casing, rolling speed and traction made the Kryptotals an easy first choice.

As I didn’t notice the negative effect of the heavier and stickier tire on the SCOR on the uphills, I didn’t notice the lighter, faster rolling rubber on the Rallon either. The singletrack climbs were just as uneventful and road pedaling was as fun as it could be on a 35-lb bike with suction cups for tires. What I did notice was the way the bike wanted to spring out of corners. Carbon wheel to carbon wheel, Rallon ran the Union rims for a long time and is now on Reserve 30HDs. The difference is minimal between them on berms. When things get rough and chunky I find the Reserves a bit more forgiving. But the DHF had a way of storing kinetic energy and releasing it in a unique way. With front tires set to 19psi for the test period, it was nice to get some energy out of the Rallon with the DHFs.

The energy that was injected with faster rubber also came at a price: high speed entrances to corners, especially loose ones with steep run ins, became less...sure.

The skatey feeling was easier to detect with the DHF on the Rallon when compared to the SCOR. While the DHF felt like an upgrade to the DHR II on the front of the SCOR, it felt more like a compromise on the Rallon (compared to the Kryptotal) when it came to specific situations.

When things slowed down and technical moves were negotiated, the DHF did admirably on both bikes. Keeping the front end glued to rocks and roots, the DHF did what it says on the package. Micro corrections were no problem on both bikes considering the 30mm difference in front wheel travel numbers.

I always find it fascinating how the current geometry of bikes allows us to tackle geological puzzles as we make our way down some questionable trails. The confidence I have on the seemingly inappropriate (for the terrain) SCOR is interesting. Putting the bike down the same type of trails I would happily bring any big bike on really speaks to the 64-degree head angle and tall stack that is part of what makes modern trail bikes so amazing. Only when riding with a group of people down fast and rough trails would I be happier to be nestled on a bike with more travel.

The slow speed performance of the DHF is still very relevant and if your trails consist mostly of terrain like that, there is very little reason to carry heavier and slower rubber up the hill. I find the DHF also clears mud better than the more tightly packed knobs on tires from Maxxis and Continental. So if clay is on the menu, either wait it out until it’s dryer, or give the DHF a chance to shine.

If multi day epics in the backcountry are on the menu or your fast bike needs some more significant rubber, I think the DHF is still a great option. For the riding I do, the DHF works exceptionally well in this regard:making the trail bike perform better!

The tire that set the record straight is a low consequence step up on smaller bikes. The rounder profile lends itself well to smaller frame clearances too. You can still get the Maxxis DHF in 20+ different SKUs for all kinds of bikes and situations, and widths: 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, not to mention wheel sizes (26 ain't dead - nor is 24, actually).

While I’ll move the needle towards burlier rubber for the bigger bike, I think the trail category is still well served by this veteran of a pattern here on the Shore and adjacent zones. On the front (and even out back) the DHF is still relevant even if there are better options for riding bigger and faster. We are lucky that Colin Bailey had a vision to pave a valuable path to side knob and siping technology. What is your DHF experience and ideal use case scenario?

Maxxis DHF