Results 1 to 58 of 58
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LionelCSG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    116

    Maxxis Ardent 2.4: Very Narrow compared to Racing Ralph

    I'm afraid I'm a bit soiled by the Schwalbe Racing Ralph 29x2.4. but as I mounted my new Maxxis Ardent onto my wheels, I was quite a bit disappointed about its width and volume. It's really bad that 2.4" is not the same as 2.4". What do you think about that tire?

  2. #2
    fnInt(1/x^2,x,0,1)
    Reputation: fleanutz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    413
    Sorry you soiled yourself.

    J/K...I've got an Ardent 2.4 on the way and I've been riding a RR 2.4 for a while. Can't contribute anything buy my 6th grade attempt at humor.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LionelCSG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    116
    Oh, sorry - i forgot the "p" for "spoiled"

  4. #4
    Gigantic Hawk
    Reputation: dubthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,395
    How about a side by side pic of the two?
    new jerseys and tech t's
    made to order in the USA from premium recycled poly - men's and women's in all sizes

  5. #5
    Is dang happy!
    Reputation: Mr. Doom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,232
    Word on the street is that it makes a great rear ripper.
    Sorry I have only played with the 26" version and it was a good tire on the rear, had a Betty on the front of that bike.

    Shiggy says the Ralph may have the "magic tread pattern" and at the $$$ it better. I only got five miles on mine before winter set in.
    Last edited by Mr. Doom; 02-02-2010 at 06:48 PM.
    The wheel is a extension of the foot

  6. #6
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,410
    Tires often take a few days to expand to full volume.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,329
    Are you comparing a used RR to a new Ardent? If so, that may be part of the problem. It takes a while for new tires to stretch to their full width. They need to be mounted and ridden for a while to get true measurements. Do you have any actual measurements of the 2 mounted to the same rim?

    I have both tires mounted to Flow rims at home. I have not measured them yet, but I will do so tonight. Yes, they have both been mounted for a while and used.

    My eyeball indicator tells me the casing on the RR is a little bigger than the Ardent, and the tread on the Ardent is a little bigger than the RR. I will post my findings tomorrow.

    Mark

  8. #8
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247

    I'd have to agree with Lionel

    I have run Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4's only with tubes. Never tubeless, and on a Gordo (35mm wide rim) they measured 60.6mm.

    I have a pair of 2.4" Ardents. I set one up with a tube for awhile on a 28mm wide rim with a tube. There is no way that Ardent was ever going to be a 2.4" tire set up this way. At an outside knob to outside knob width it only got to a 58.2mm width. The casing measurement was a paltry 55.4mm

    Tubeless it has done much better. On a Velocity P-35 rim, I am getting 60.2mm width, or 2.37" width. Close, but still not as wide as a Racing Ralph with a tube! Running a tire tubeless will stretch it more because the casing doesn't have that extra support from a tube. That is the only way these Ardent 2.4" tires will ever get close to 2.4 inches.

    I am not going to harp about the Ardent 2.4"er not being 2.4 inches wide. Heck- most tires are not what they say they are for width. But in the case of this Ardent 2.4"er, it is woefully undersized. They would have been better off calling it a 2.3"er, and even then my tubed example was barely that. (I've snce converted it to tubeless as well)
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    I have run Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4's only with tubes. Never tubeless, and on a Gordo (35mm wide rim) they measured 60.6mm.

    I have a pair of 2.4" Ardents. I set one up with a tube for awhile on a 28mm wide rim with a tube. There is no way that Ardent was ever going to be a 2.4" tire set up this way. At an outside knob to outside knob width it only got to a 58.2mm width. The casing measurement was a paltry 55.4mm

    Tubeless it has done much better. On a Velocity P-35 rim, I am getting 60.2mm width, or 2.37" width. Close, but still not as wide as a Racing Ralph with a tube! Running a tire tubeless will stretch it more because the casing doesn't have that extra support from a tube. That is the only way these Ardent 2.4" tires will ever get close to 2.4 inches.

    I am not going to harp about the Ardent 2.4"er not being 2.4 inches wide. Heck- most tires are not what they say they are for width. But in the case of this Ardent 2.4"er, it is woefully undersized. They would have been better off calling it a 2.3"er, and even then my tubed example was barely that. (I've since converted it to tubeless as well)
    Very interesting!

    The one company that seems to consistently produce tires that are labeled with correct size is Specialized. I recently put a pair of Purgatory 2.2 tires on Flow rims. At 30psi. tubeless they measure 55.7mm. (both casing and edge knobs) or 2.19". I had the same experience with Eskar 2.3s on my 26" bike. I haven't ridden them very much yet but after a bit of saddle time I think I'm going to like them.

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  10. #10
    You know, for kids
    Reputation: madcap's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,585
    Well, I guess if I go for bigger knobs in a 2.4 I'll go with the Specialized Purgatory 2.4

    Although, I'm still waiting for the measurements on the Purgatory, too...
    disclaimer: I sell and repair bicycles

  11. #11
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    Just FYI, and not really applicable to 99.9% of the use the ardent will see(or racing ralph), but all mounted with tubes on a Speedway Uma 50mm wide rim, the ardent 2.25" measures out within 1mm of the ardent 2.4 and the racing ralph 2.4.

  12. #12
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach
    Just FYI, and not really applicable to 99.9% of the use the ardent will see(or racing ralph), but all mounted with tubes on a Speedway Uma 50mm wide rim, the ardent 2.25" measures out within 1mm of the ardent 2.4 and the racing ralph 2.4.
    My 2.25 Ardent was within a millimeter of the 2.4 incher on the P-35's tubeless as well. The big difference is in the construction of the the newer 2,4. It has beefier sidewalls than the 2.25 and a different bead which looks far more tubeless compatible to my eyes. And finally, I couldn't keep my Ardent 2.25 from developing pin hole leaks throught the sidewalls. They would spontaneaously erupt and leave the tire half flat after the sealant sealed them, or as in one case, entirely flat. That was the last straw for me and off it came in favor of the 2.4.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  13. #13
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    I have run Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4's only with tubes. Never tubeless, and on a Gordo (35mm wide rim) they measured 60.6mm.

    I have a pair of 2.4" Ardents. I set one up with a tube for awhile on a 28mm wide rim with a tube. There is no way that Ardent was ever going to be a 2.4" tire set up this way. At an outside knob to outside knob width it only got to a 58.2mm width. The casing measurement was a paltry 55.4mm

    Tubeless it has done much better. On a Velocity P-35 rim, I am getting 60.2mm width, or 2.37" width. Close, but still not as wide as a Racing Ralph with a tube! Running a tire tubeless will stretch it more because the casing doesn't have that extra support from a tube. That is the only way these Ardent 2.4" tires will ever get close to 2.4 inches.

    I am not going to harp about the Ardent 2.4"er not being 2.4 inches wide. Heck- most tires are not what they say they are for width. But in the case of this Ardent 2.4"er, it is woefully undersized. They would have been better off calling it a 2.3"er, and even then my tubed example was barely that. (I've snce converted it to tubeless as well)
    The prototype Ardent 2.40 I measured was virtually the same size as the RR 2.40.

    Both on a 24mm rim.

    Ardent:
    tread: 61.1
    casing: 58.7
    Volume index: 32.3

    Racing Ralph
    tread: 60.8
    casing: 58.2
    VI: 32.5
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  14. #14
    Gigantic Hawk
    Reputation: dubthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,395
    -Shiggy

    From your numbers, the Ardent seems bigger. Would it be safe to say that the RR stretches more than the Ardent, which gives the results that others are getting?
    new jerseys and tech t's
    made to order in the USA from premium recycled poly - men's and women's in all sizes

  15. #15
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,605
    Quote Originally Posted by LionelCSG
    I'm afraid I'm a bit soiled by the Schwalbe Racing Ralph 29x2.4. but as I mounted my new Maxxis Ardent onto my wheels, I was quite a bit disappointed about its width and volume. It's really bad that 2.4" is not the same as 2.4". What do you think about that tire?
    Here's a clue for those who don't warm up the oven before throwing the pizza in there:

    You have to air the tire up and let it sit for a few hours so it expands if you want a more realistic measurement. I just mounted a brand new Ardent 2.4 on the rear of my RIP yesterday at lunch. Measured 55mm in casing width at 12:30 p.m. after mounting with a tube. I came home from work, and the same casing width measured 59mm at 5:30 p.m. After 24 hours - it's identical to my Ralph 2.4.

    Be patient - and measure after the tire has been on the rim for a few hours or more. A measurement right after mounting doesn't count.

    BB

  16. #16
    You know, for kids
    Reputation: madcap's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,585
    how about everybody come back in a few weeks with some measurements after getting a few rides on them
    disclaimer: I sell and repair bicycles

  17. #17
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,605
    Quote Originally Posted by madcap
    how about everybody come back in a few weeks with some measurements after getting a few rides on them

    Bingo! But let the whiners whine in the meantime as it is fun to watch them eat crow....

    BB

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,819
    I was shocked at how much the ardent grew after being mounted tubeless a day or two. I was also a little nonplussed initially...but now I am super stoked. The ardent 2.4 is a very big looking tire!


  19. #19
    Rider and Wrench
    Reputation: knottshore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,477
    I installed an Ardent 2.4 on the Front of my F/S to see how it faired compared to the Rampage I had been running for the winter (Ardent 2.4 VS Rampage thread...), with an Ardent 2.25 Out Back-

    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)

    The knobs are noticeably taller especially the transitions on the 2.4 and as other's have noted it has a much beefier sidewall- it actually has a knurled-like texture (think micro snakeskin...) not smooth like the 2.25 version-

    Silly to look at it in such detail I guess as if it will make or break the whole deal.... but that's the beauty of e-biking
    I Just wish I could ride more!


  20. #20
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by dubthang
    -Shiggy

    From your numbers, the Ardent seems bigger. Would it be safe to say that the RR stretches more than the Ardent, which gives the results that others are getting?
    No. I pre"stretch" all tires before I measure them.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,266
    Somebody at Maxxis must not like you guys.
    I have production Ardent 2.4 mounted on my Gordos with Tubes and its casing width measures well within 60mm. As big as the Weirwolfs which they replaced. Add the bigger tread and it is just about the biggest tire I can run on the rear of my Jones. Every now and again I'll even get some tire buzz.
    Could not be happier with this tire in Socal. 200lbs and running the front at 20psi and the back at 25psi. Feels like I'm riding on fluffy pillows with a nasty set of chompers.
    Love for the Ardent 2.4.

  22. #22
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    I was shocked at how much the ardent grew after being mounted
    that's what she said

  23. #23
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,250
    lot's of good points made, especially with respect to timing of measuring tires.

    in summary, for other than XC riding on boardwalks, the 2.4 Ardent kicks the snot out of the pantywaisted, but nicely pantywaisted Racing Ralph. I own both and would sure as hell not consider the Ralph for other than XC purposes, even by my standards - I however like it (Ralph) in particular as a front tire on a rigid bike. The Ardent 2.4 is outstanding for weekend warriors like myself...truly outstanding IMHO, rendering the Dissent and other such tires utter retardation

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    746
    this thread is worthless without photos.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by flyag1
    this thread is worthless without photos.
    yes. That and tires given to me to take said photos

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    338
    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.

  27. #27
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by flyag1
    this thread is worthless without photos.
    Photos can be deceiving. Camera angle can easily make the smaller tire look huge.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Photos can be deceiving. Camera angle can easily make the smaller tire look huge.
    Shig, are you sure your talking about tires and not nipples? Ha,ha

  29. #29
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247
    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............
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,329
    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
    Tread: 61.0

    Racing Ralph 2.4: Casing: 61.0
    Tread: 62.5

    Bontrager 29-3 2.25: Casing: 56.5
    Tread: 55.0

    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?

    Mark

  31. #31
    HopHeads, Unite!
    Reputation: Lugboot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    395
    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.

  32. #32
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,605
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    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
    Tread: 61.0

    Racing Ralph 2.4: Casing: 61.0
    Tread: 62.5

    Bontrager 29-3 2.25: Casing: 56.5
    Tread: 55.0

    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?

    Mark
    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.

    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.

    Ardent:
    tread: 61.1
    casing: 58.7
    Volume index: 32.3

    Racing Ralph
    tread: 60.8
    casing: 58.2
    VI: 32.5


    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.

    BB

  33. #33
    the mountian is within
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    543
    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)
    Bz
    i own a bikeshop in WV thetruewheelwv.com

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown
    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.

    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.

    Ardent:
    tread: 61.1
    casing: 58.7
    Volume index: 32.3

    Racing Ralph
    tread: 60.8
    casing: 58.2
    VI: 32.5


    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.

    BB
    Bruce,

    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.

    Mark

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gasp4Air's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,902
    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.

  36. #36
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,605
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    Bruce,

    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.

    Mark
    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.

    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>

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    83
    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.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by 29Clyde
    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

  39. #39
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    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
    Agreed, but I would say it is industry wide and not necessarily confined to Maxxis.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: None's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    590
    I just read this whole thread and have come to the conclusion it has given me a headache.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    Agreed, but I would say it is industry wide and not necessarily confined to Maxxis.
    yes, good point

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown
    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.
    Bruce,

    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.

    Mark

    Edit: One more thing, my Ardent is a production version bought directly from Maxxis a couple of months ago.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    Agreed, but I would say it is industry wide and not necessarily confined to Maxxis.
    Without question. Some of the biggest variations in weight that we have seen have been on Schwalbe.

  44. #44
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,605
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeny
    Bruce,

    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.

    Mark

    Edit: One more thing, my Ardent is a production version bought directly from Maxxis a couple of months ago.
    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.

    BB

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LionelCSG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by M_S
    Tires often take a few days to expand to full volume.
    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...

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ronnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,184
    Quote Originally Posted by LionelCSG
    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.

    Ronnie.
    The trouble with having an open mind is that people will insist on trying to put things in it.

  47. #47
    jmw
    jmw is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    831
    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???
    future nature

  48. #48
    Rider and Wrench
    Reputation: knottshore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,477
    Quote Originally Posted by jmw
    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???

    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!


  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,819
    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.


  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LionelCSG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronnie
    So let us know how wide they are at 30psi.
    Ronnie.
    I deflated them to 30 psi and thy shrunk down to 59,3mm (Maxxis Ardent @ 59,3mm)
    But that's still much more voluminous than before when I inflated it the first time.

  51. #51
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    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.
    What's not to understand? The point being made here is that there is a variance in casings and weights. Same as other tires I suspect, but for whatever reason, the Ardent 2.4"er seems to be the poster child for research on mtbr.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  52. #52
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    I have a pair of 2.4" Ardents.

    Tubeless it has done much better. On a Velocity P-35 rim, I am getting 60.2mm width, or 2.37" width. Close, but still not as wide as a Racing Ralph with a tube! Running a tire tubeless will stretch it more because the casing doesn't have that extra support from a tube. That is the only way these Ardent 2.4" tires will ever get close to 2.4 inches.

    I am not going to harp about the Ardent 2.4"er not being 2.4 inches wide. Heck- most tires are not what they say they are for width. But in the case of this Ardent 2.4"er, it is woefully undersized. They would have been better off calling it a 2.3"er, and even then my tubed example was barely that. (I've snce converted it to tubeless as well)
    Update from a February 18th post on G-Ted's Blog:

    Those Ardent 2.4"ers are plumping up! Like a Dubuque HotDog, they are pretty swollen from their original size. I'd guess they are actually approaching the 2.4 inch status. Amazingly enough! The best part is the ride though. I have them set up tubeless and they are really rolling nice and smoothly!

    Seems a bit of euphoric distance from the "woefully undersized" comment.

  53. #53
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown

    Seems a bit of euphoric distance from the "woefully undersized" comment.
    The stretch from the Ardent 2.4"ers tubeless is nothing short of amazing, Bruce. But..........they have to be set up tubeless on a wide rim.

    If I mount these on 28mm wide rims, I lose some of my width. If I mount them up with tubes?

    Fagedda Boud It. No way they come close to 2.4 inches.

    So it depends on set up entirely. If you run them with tubes on an average width rim, yeah.....woefully undersized. Not everyone will have the luxury or need to use these on such wide rims or will want to use them tubeless.

    Thanks for bringing that up. It was a point that needed clarification.

    I am super pleased with them so far as a tire for those who are looking for a tubeless tire set up on a wide rim for purposes of max air volume with a tire that looks to have some decent traction. Now that the trails are on their way to drying out, I'll find out soon.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,266
    My ardents plumped up quite a bit mounted on my Gordos with tubes. They barely fit in the rear stays of my Jones. I get some tire buzz every now and again.
    I am thoroughly addicted to them.

  55. #55
    Expert Crasher
    Reputation: GreenLightGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,355
    Quote Originally Posted by morandi
    My ardents plumped up quite a bit mounted on my Gordos with tubes. They barely fit in the rear stays of my Jones. I get some tire buzz every now and again.
    I am thoroughly addicted to them.
    Yes - quite plump. I get 61mm tread/60.3mm casing on mine at 20 psi mounted on a Gordo, with a tube. Tires been fully stretched (it is 10 months old now, pre-production prototype).

    61 millimeter = 2.4015748031 inches.
    Happiness depends more on the inward disposition of mind than on outward circumstances. Benjamin Franklin

  56. #56
    willtsmith_nwi
    Reputation: willtsmith_nwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted

    I am not going to harp about the Ardent 2.4"er not being 2.4 inches wide. Heck- most tires are not what they say they are for width. But in the case of this Ardent 2.4"er, it is woefully undersized. They would have been better off calling it a 2.3"er, and even then my tubed example was barely that. (I've snce converted it to tubeless as well)
    Yes, but it will make all of us Ardent 2.2" riders happy to have a real 2.2" in the 2.4" ;-)

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    Adding my data points to this (old) thread.

    After 48 hours and 1 ride my 2.4 ardent is still 2+ mm smaller than my 2.35 ikon, which I find a bit disappointing.

    Casing at 30 psi on Enve Am rims:
    Ardent: hair under 59mm
    Ikon: hair over 61mm

    It might keep growing but I'm not holding my breath.

  58. #58
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    A 3 page thread devoted to the possible size of one tire..........only on emptybeer! And I actually skimmed through all 3 pages...yikes.
    Plus, I think I have yet another variable to toss into the mix, one mentioned to me by the local LBS owner where I buy all of my Maxxis tires. That is, the EXO casing seems to set up on a rim 'larger', making the whole tire look bigger than a 2.4 Ardent with just the normal casing.

    No measurements were performed to confirm this.....I just thought I'd report it in.

    Carry on.

Members who have read this thread: 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •