same experience here....put a 2.4 ardent tubeless on the front of my bike, rode for two months, decided to put another on the rear for the winter and it was amazing the difference in how much larger the one I'd been riding was compared to the newly mounted one.
Photos can be deceiving. Camera angle can easily make the smaller tire look huge.
Originally Posted by flyag1
The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common
Shig, are you sure your talking about tires and not nipples? Ha,ha
Originally Posted by shiggy
Air pressure affects this stuff quite a bit too, by the way. Measure your tire at 35 psi and then at 25psi. It will come out quite differently.
Just for reference, I always continue to measure tires during the time I have them on a bike and am riding them. The Ardents in question will be continued to be measured, but in my experience, tires tend to stabilize at a certain width and then do not stretch any further, or if they do, not significantly enought to bother mentioning. (As in a tenth of a millimeter, for instance.)
The Ardents I referenced in this thread have been ridden several times, and are not going to get to 2.4 inches on P-35 rims. Close- yes. The tubed tire wouldn't have ever come close. No way. It would have had to have stretched 3 plus millimeters. (Started out at just over 57 when I mounted it and got to the 58.2 I referenced earlier)
Others may have different results, and I am not at all surprised by this. Just as tires will vary quite a bit in weight, so will the widths we all get even on the same model used on the same rim. In fact, my Ardents are different widths. Both 2.4 inchers, both on the same rims. The 60.2mm one I referenced earlier is my wider Ardent of the two. The other is 58.8mm
And so it goes............
So I did a bunch of measuring last night and here is what I came up with. All tires mounted tubeless on Flow rims at 30psi. The RR has been mounted and used for about a year, The Ardent for about 3 months. I also have a Bontrager 29-3 2.25 TLR mounted on a Flow that I measured as well. Also mounted and ridden for a couple of months.
Ardent 2.4: Casing: 59.5
Racing Ralph 2.4: Casing: 61.0
Bontrager 29-3 2.25: Casing: 56.5
So there you have another confirmation that the RR is indead bigger than the Ardent. But as others have said, they are completely different tires. I am using the RR on the front of my rigid SS and absolutely love it! It's very light, huge volume and enough grip for me. Yes the sidewalls are thin, but I rarely have sidewall issues with front tires. The Ardent is a much burlier tire, and is mounted on my Alfine wheel for the winter. Big volume, grippy, and I don't have to worry about the sidewalls.
One other comment. I have found that tires stretch more/faster when they are mounted and ridden, instead of just mounting them and letting them sit. Shiggy, just wondering how you 'pre-stretch' your tires?
So, here's a question. I have a 2.4 Ardent I'm ready to use somewhere. I'm thinking of running it tubeless on Flow rims on my Kona Hei Hei. The question is--front or back? I currently have 2.4 Conti Mtn Kings on it. I read differing opinions on front vs. rear performance. Will it make a better front tire or back tire when paired with a Mtn King?
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
Mark, you're forgetting the casing height measurement and the volume index calculation to show the actual air volume within the tire. The Ardent sits 2.1mm taller in casing height alone than the Ralph on my Blunt rims and the volume index measures practically the same (in Shiggy's examples) and a bit larger for the Ardent in my case - at least on the Blunt and how my specific tires measure. Plus, the knobs are taller (tread depth at the center) on the Ardent than they are on the Ralph. So with the 2.1mm extra height of the casing itself, plus the taller knob height (tread depth) of the Ardent - the Ardent has both a larger volume index as well as a taller profile which you can visually see if you set them next to each other.
Originally Posted by bikeny
In other words, when we say "bigger than" it depends on what you are calling "bigger". In your case, you are calling the Ralph 2.4 "bigger" due to the width. I'm calling the Ardent "bigger" due to the volume index being larger on mine as well as the additional casing and tread depth height. I know we are probably splitting hairs here, and the Ralph has a flatter profile than the Ardent which some may prefer or vice versa depending on terrain and intended use. My Ardents really feel like they "roll faster" - probably due to the roundness and center tread even though they are a heavier tire than the Ralphs.
Here are Shiggy's #'s:
The prototype Ardent 2.40 I measured was virtually the same size as the RR 2.40.
Both on a 24mm rim.
Volume index: 32.3
And in my case on the *Velocity Blunts which is a 28mm wide rim (40 psi with tubes):
Initial measurements immediately after mounting them up in the garage in the cold temps (single digits) were:
Ralph: 60.4mm casing width; 61.46mm tread width
Ardent: 59.36mm casing width; 60.42mm tread width
After a bit more than 24 hours and bringing them inside the house to temperatures of 66 degrees to warm up, they measured out at:
Maxxis Ardent 2.4 (weights for the two I have are 790g/805g)
60.42mm tread width
59.69mm casing width
55mm casing height (rim edge to casing top, not to the top of knobs)
32.82 volume index
Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4
61.46mm tread width
60.96mm casing width
52.9mm casing height
32.24 volume index
That's on a wider Blunt rim, 40 psi, with tubes. Ralph is 2 years old and has been run tubeless, the Ardent (one is 6 months old, but has little ride time compared to the 2 year old Ralph and has never been run tubeless, and the other 2.4 Ardent I own is brand new and has two rides in the snow on it). My Ralphs 2.4, mounted at 40 psi with tubes on the Blunt rim way back when had only a 57mm casing width after the initial 24 hours. Two years later and after being run tubeless, they have "grown" 3.96mm in width at the casing.
Outside of both being big volume tires, the Ralph and Ardent are vastly different big meat tires. One is tall and fat and heavy with aggressive tread and thick sidewalls. The other is short and fat and light with not very aggressive tread and paper thin sidewalls.
the mountian is within
Just measured on a WTB speeddisc 26.5 rim
55 casing 59 tread width
ridden a few times-with tube
has 18psi in it now-55 degrees
another on an stans Arch tubeless was in the 60's at same temp or colder(had been in a trunk-not just my cold shop)
i own a bikeshop in WV thetruewheelwv.com
Originally Posted by BruceBrown
I actually did measure the height of the 2 tires as well, although I probably did it differently than Shiggy does. I measured from the inside of the rim (where the spokes eneter) to the top of the casing and to the top of the tread. Again, my RR came out bigger than the Ardent.
Ardent: Casing Hieght: 73.75
Tread Hieght: 77.00
RR: Casing Hieght: 74.75
Tread Hieght: 77.25
The only thing I can think of is that the RR is older and has been ridden more. Also, manufacturing tolerances obviously come into play. All I know is MY RR is bigger in all directions than MY Ardent. And I completely agree with you concerning the differences between the 2 tires, Although 'paper thin' is an exageration, and the tread is actually pretty grippy, but obviously not like the Ardent.
Here's a question for Shiggy, or anyone else who knows: how do you determine volume?
Use it, use it, use it while you still have it.
Dang! Your Ralphs are tall. What width rim are you running? Perhaps my 28mm wide Blunt flattens out the Ralph's height a bit over yours and accounts for the difference in our measurements.
Originally Posted by bikeny
Okay, time to mount up the Ralph and take as accurate of measurements again as I can. One has to keep in mind my Ralphs are 2 years old, so tread height is worn down a bit, but not too terribly worn as I really didn't run the 2.4's that much in the 2 years of ownership to date. But, I guess the tread depth/height on the Ardent is not as deep as I thought it was. My bad....
Same method as you used, only with my Blunt rims. Both aired up with tubes at 40 psi (which is way higher than I use, but sticking with Shiggy's method of taking the measurements at 40 psi)...
Ralph casing height = 72.88mm
Ralph tread height = 76.00
Ardent casing height = 74.98mm* (this one is 6 months old and the Prototype)
Ardent tread height = 78.34mm*
Ardent casing height = 74.65mm (brand new Ardent mounted two days ago)
Ardent tread height = 77.99mm
tread width is 60.2 mm
casing width is 59.23mm
55mm casing height
32.57 volume index
So the brand new Ardent is a bit smaller at this point than my prototype. Is that the age issue and the fact I've ridden the Prototype off and on for 6 months, or just the reality that every tire can be +/- over another of the same model. Worth considering, but I would imagine the new Ardent will "settle into" its size as time goes forward. I'll remeasure after some riding time and age on the new one to see if any growth occurs. I will be mounting them up tubeless once winter has passed. Plus, as I said - my Ralph tread is not new.
A couple of shots of these big meat tires....
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7166535@N05/4328423868/" title="Ralph by singingsingletracker, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2623/4328423868_60d5fa47d4_b.jpg" width="1024" height="768" alt="Ralph" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7166535@N05/4327690071/" title="RalphArdent by singingsingletracker, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4327690071_23ef95440d_b.jpg" width="768" height="1024" alt="RalphArdent" /></a>
I have become convinced that with some tire manufacturers there is significant variation in their tires from batch to batch. A friend of mine who is the consummate weight weenie, buys and weighs lots of 29er tires and routinely observes variations in weight of more than 100grams between tires of the exact same specification but different batch.
If so, it would go a long way towards explaining how seasoned riders could have such dramatically different experiences and reach completely different opinions regarding size, volume, traction, durability, etc.
Anyway, just a thought.
This thread alone seems to cement that theory as fact. I doubt Maxxis purposefully downsized a tire that was being praised by all their testers for its size (among other things), but I can definitely believe that their manufacturing process isn't as stable as we would like
Originally Posted by 29Clyde
Agreed, but I would say it is industry wide and not necessarily confined to Maxxis.
Originally Posted by boomn
I just read this whole thread and have come to the conclusion it has given me a headache.
yes, good point
Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
Originally Posted by BruceBrown
My tires are all mounted tubeless on Flow rims, which are 28mm outside width. The Stans rims probably change the shape of the tires a bit because of the different beadlock and lower sidewall. Anyway, I think we are just seeing manufacturing tolerances. They are both big tires for different purposes. I also like them both better than the 'original' big tire, the WTB WW 2.55.
Edit: One more thing, my Ardent is a production version bought directly from Maxxis a couple of months ago.
Without question. Some of the biggest variations in weight that we have seen have been on Schwalbe.
Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
I guess we just chalk it up to the industry wide variation. Odd that I am even concerned and posting about it since my preference is for narrower, smaller volume racing tires. But I do have the RIP 9 decked out with the big meats for my fun riding. I've also got some Flows coming for another bike. I was thinking of big meats on my Karate Monkey in a 1 x 9 configuration. Either Ardents or how "small" are the WW 2.55's. I've never seen one and don't know the measurements. The 2.4 Ralph rubs on the side of my KM chainstay with the wheel shoved all the way forward and my out of saddle grinding away. The Ardent may do the same, but I'm hoping with a stiffer wheel that is coming, my rub issues will dissipate.
Originally Posted by bikeny
Originally Posted by M_S
You're right - I didn't know that the tire strechtes that much. I inflated the new ardents to the maximum possible pressure of 4.5 Bar and re-measured their casing-widths after a couple of days. And so it stretched from 56.50 to 60.4mm. Pictures are here: -->Maxxis Ardent 29x2.4 after some days and at 4.5 bar (Post #8)
I just hope that it's width doesn't decrease too much when I lower the pressure...
So let us know how wide they are at 30psi.
Originally Posted by LionelCSG
The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.
I just got back from a ride where my buddy has a Ardent 2.24 on his front wheel...we compared his 2.24 to my 2.4....virtually identical.
His rim might be 1 mm wider....
I'm beginning to wonder if there is a batch of tires that got marked wrong???
I've only had 30psig max in the tire, but I have ridden it. Maybe it needs to stretch more once it warms up???
Rider and Wrench
Originally Posted by jmw
I have both the 2.25 & 2.4 Ardents' mounted up on Stans Arch and while I can see where you are comming from in the initial size department (I think time will make more of a difference as many have indicated) but I don't think there was a "batch" marked wrong. I can for sure tell the difference visually and here are some specific measurements posted earlier in this same thread:
....Here's what I found after having the 2.4 mounted tubeless on an Stans Arch (~24.5mm wide) at ~45 + psi from the time I mounted it to see how much it "grew"....
Tread Width Casing Width
At Install: 2.32 2.23
~12 Hr: 2.34 2.25
~2 weeks: 2.34 (57mm) 2.25 (60mm)
For Reference here are some specs on 2.25 Ardent's on the same wheels but mounted for a few months-
Tread Width Casing Width
2+ months: 2.23 (57mm) 2.16 (55mm)
Overall they are two completely different tires- take a look at how much taller the knobs are especially the transition knobs, check out the sidewall, it is much heavier and has a slight knurled pattern to it- then check out the weight difference -
I Just wish I could ride more!
I don't understand this at all...I ran the 2.25 for over a year & recently mounted up the 2.4 to the same rim...both tubeless. There is NO comparison! The 2.4 is HUGE! Far bigger than my 2.25.
I deflated them to 30 psi and thy shrunk down to 59,3mm (Maxxis Ardent @ 59,3mm)
Originally Posted by Ronnie
But that's still much more voluminous than before when I inflated it the first time.