Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 463
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stopbreakindown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    839
    2.35 Ikon rear / 2.4 Ardent Front


    Untitled by chadledge, on Flickr

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    971
    I put an Ikon-2.35 on the front and was surprised how well it performed. I'm thinking of going front and rear with the Ikon[ 2.35 ] .

  3. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Orl1exm View Post
    After reading this thread, I bought one Ikon 29x2.35 3c/EXO/TR. Now, I don't know whether to mount it front or rear. 2013 Nimble 9, RS 120mm RLT, 185lbs riding wt. Currently running a 2.25 NN on the front with a 2.25 Rocket Ron rear, both SS. Looking for more "cush" on the HT. Running tubeless. I like the NN on the front so far. Run a Bontrager XR4 on the front of my 5 Spot. Any suggestions? Front/Rear. If rear, keep the NN or go with something else. XC/Trail, pine straw covered trails, loose sand, and some hard pack depending where I ride.
    Tough call. I'd run the ikon on the rear, and keep the NN up front. If you feel like the rear tire has more cornering traction than the front, you'll need to find a more aggressive front tire.
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  4. #104
    StoneCutter
    Reputation: Orl1exm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    39
    Yeah, I'm leaning real hard, (pun intended), with the Ikon on the rear. I have a Michelin Wild Grip'r 2 that I want to try on the front when it dries out a little. Like the NN. Agree on if the rear is cornering, look for new front. Thanks bholwell.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: clarkrw3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    544
    I'm running one on the front of my SS, at first it seemed to drift on loose over hard pack (desert riding). However, when I got the pressure dialed in they seem to stick like Velcro. Pretty happy so far.

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTscoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    Tough call. I'd run the ikon on the rear, and keep the NN up front. If you feel like the rear tire has more cornering traction than the front, you'll need to find a more aggressive front tire.
    This is exactly how I always felt running the 2.35 Ikon rear and 2.4" Ardent front. Tons of grip until you hit the funny transition on the Ardent and then the front tire would always wash out before the Ikon would start to drift. I'm mounting up a 2.3" High Roller 2 up front tomorrow and cant wait to see how that pairs with the rear Ikon.

    Really wanted to go for the DHF but I've run 26" DHFs but never a High Roller 1 or 2.

  7. #107
    connisseur
    Reputation: Tickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    597
    Hey for those that like the Ikon/Ardent combo, give the Bontrager 29-4 a look up front. I would rate the 29-4 a better overall tire than the Ardent 2.4. The team issue version I have is lighter, little less volume at 2.3 but has better traction in loose cond's.

    I really like the 29-4 front/Ikon 2.35 rear combo on my hardtail, doubt I would buy another Ardent for front use.

  8. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    502
    My current rims are Enve Xc's, would the Ikon 2.35 be to wide for these rims?

    Can anyone list actual weights of the 2.2 and 2.35?

    Thanks

  9. #109
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Tree View Post
    My current rims are Enve Xc's, would the Ikon 2.35 be to wide for these rims?

    Can anyone list actual weights of the 2.2 and 2.35?

    Thanks
    Which version of each are you looking for in terms of weight? Not trying to be smart with you, but there really are plenty of links for weights of both sizes.

    The Maxxis weight specification chart is really quite accurate...


    IkonWeights

    I've got the non EXO versions of both the 2.2 and the 2.35.

  10. #110
    Did I catch a niner+?
    Reputation: Mr Pink57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    Just ordered a 2.35 exo 3c for up front to replace the 2.4 ardent. Have a 2.2 ikon out back and used to have one up front, great set of tires really impressed with the 2.2s.
    Mr. Krabs: Is it true, Squidward? Is it hilarious?

  11. #111
    Meat Clever
    Reputation: DirtDummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    678
    How is durability of TR/EXO Ikon 2.2 and/or 2.35 for rear use? I have recently killed an ignitor EXO and a conti X-king protection and need a tire to last more than a couple of months
    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaEps View Post
    A little bit of pee just trickled out of my pipi when I saw that.

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDummy View Post
    How is durability of TR/EXO Ikon 2.2 and/or 2.35 for rear use? I have recently killed an ignitor EXO and a conti X-king protection and need a tire to last more than a couple of months
    What do you mean with durability? Better puncture protection or less wear?

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bailey44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    755
    Your tire profile won't be as good as if they were on a wide rim but it will still work just fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tree View Post
    My current rims are Enve Xc's, would the Ikon 2.35 be to wide for these rims?

    Can anyone list actual weights of the 2.2 and 2.35?

    Thanks

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDummy View Post
    How is durability of TR/EXO Ikon 2.2 and/or 2.35 for rear use? I have recently killed an ignitor EXO and a conti X-king protection and need a tire to last more than a couple of months
    If you're having issues with those tires, ikons wouldnt be a good choice for you

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTscoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDummy View Post
    How is durability of TR/EXO Ikon 2.2 and/or 2.35 for rear use? I have recently killed an ignitor EXO and a conti X-king protection and need a tire to last more than a couple of months
    The 2.35 seemed like it had thicker sidewalls than the 2.2, both being EXO models.

  16. #116
    Meat Clever
    Reputation: DirtDummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by JeroenK View Post
    What do you mean with durability? Better puncture protection or less wear?
    Both, but I've had relatively good sidewall performance with Maxxis EXO tires, so durability regarding tread wear is the information I'm after
    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaEps View Post
    A little bit of pee just trickled out of my pipi when I saw that.

  17. #117
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,320
    Have run a 2.4 Ardent's EXO as a front off / on for 3 seasons, and find them to be very tough. Karma caught up to me last spring, and within two weeks I killed a Saguaro, a Race King, and an X-King. So, I put a 2.35 Ikon 3C EXO on the rear (rigid SS).

    The big Ikon has huge volume, and @ 27 psi great grip. No, it's not as light, or IMO rolls as fast, yet after 1100 + mi. has proven itself to be very durable, and the tread long lasting.

  18. #118
    Meat Clever
    Reputation: DirtDummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    678
    Flyin_W,

    Great feedback - thanks. I'm gonna go with the 2.35
    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaEps View Post
    A little bit of pee just trickled out of my pipi when I saw that.

  19. #119
    connisseur
    Reputation: Tickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    597
    I've been surprised how well the tread has worn, when I installed it last June I figured I'd be lucky to get thru the fall given the small knobs and rear use but there's still plenty of knobbage left. I have another one that I will use on the rear when this one wears out.

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    812
    The tires rock! I had the 2.2 on the rear put a 2.35 not going back Ubber! Amazing tires!
    "It Is What It Is" Phil 4:13
    B-Ray Da Beast

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    38
    Anyone have an opinion on using the Ikon 2.35 on the front vs. Ardent 2.25 (which I currently run). I'm running an Ikon 2.2 on the rear and Ardent 2.25 on the front (29er hardtail) in super rocky Central PA (Rothrock State Forest). How does the traction compare (very important) and how does the rolling resistance compare (not terribly important)?

  22. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTscoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by dreich88 View Post
    Anyone have an opinion on using the Ikon 2.35 on the front vs. Ardent 2.25 (which I currently run). I'm running an Ikon 2.2 on the rear and Ardent 2.25 on the front (29er hardtail) in super rocky Central PA (Rothrock State Forest). How does the traction compare (very important) and how does the rolling resistance compare (not terribly important)?
    I've heard some locals say that the Ikon 2.35 is grippier than the 2.4 Ardent. I can attest to this at least having run the Ikon out back and the Ardent up front. That setup always seemed very imbalanced like the rear tire had more grip than the front in loose conditions. A 2.35 Ikon up front and 2.2 or 2.35 out back would be killer for a fast rolling setup as long as your riding isnt too loamy.

  23. #123
    Meat Clever
    Reputation: DirtDummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by dreich88 View Post
    Anyone have an opinion on using the Ikon 2.35 on the front vs. Ardent 2.25 (which I currently run). I'm running an Ikon 2.2 on the rear and Ardent 2.25 on the front (29er hardtail) in super rocky Central PA (Rothrock State Forest). How does the traction compare (very important) and how does the rolling resistance compare (not terribly important)?

    Ikon 2.35 front is way better than Ardent 2.25 (I never liked and could never trust the 2.25 Ardent up front - the Ardent 2.4, however, is a great front tire)
    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaEps View Post
    A little bit of pee just trickled out of my pipi when I saw that.

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: clarkrw3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by GTscoob View Post
    I've heard some locals say that the Ikon 2.35 is grippier than the 2.4 Ardent. I can attest to this at least having run the Ikon out back and the Ardent up front. That setup always seemed very imbalanced like the rear tire had more grip than the front in loose conditions. A 2.35 Ikon up front and 2.2 or 2.35 out back would be killer for a fast rolling setup as long as your riding isnt too loamy.
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDummy View Post
    Ikon 2.35 front is way better than Ardent 2.25 (I never liked and could never trust the 2.25 Ardent up front - the Ardent 2.4, however, is a great front tire)
    I was going to say something similar. I think the 2.35 Ikon is better than the 2.25 Ardent as a front tire in all areas. Rolls better and corners better than 2.25 Ardent. Rolls better but doesn't have as good of traction in the loose as the 2.4 Ardent. I really have loved my 2.35 Ikon as a front tire, I will say lower pressure to get the grip on loose over hard.

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,097
    So I'm thinking about trying the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo a lot of people are having success with. I currently have a butcher 2.3 in the front and a purgatory 2.3 in the back. Grip from this combo is very good but they leave a little to be desired in terms of volume and rolling resistance. They are both right on 2.2" at the tread on my 23mm internal width rims.

    Anyway, how does the Ikon/Ardent combo work in higher speed situations? I was thinking of running it for the Pisgah Enduro. Kitsuma is the fastest stage and tends to be steep, fast, and dusty. I'm hoping the rolling resistance will make the climbing a bit easier without sacrificing too much grip at the limit. Anyone care to re-assure me?

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    401
    Any of you racing with the 2.35 up front? Is it worth the weight penalty versus the 2.2?

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: clarkrw3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    544

    Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by durkind View Post
    Any of you racing with the 2.35 up front? Is it worth the weight penalty versus the 2.2?
    I think so. Love it for the front

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OxRocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    22
    This week I replaced the front tire from Ikon 2.25 (exo) to Ikon 2.35 (non-exo). I ride a steel rigid singlespeed. Rear tire is still Ikon 2.25 exo.
    Con: 50 grams (=1.7 oz?) more weight (2.25 exo vs 2.35 non-exo, but ihmo not noticable...).
    Pros: in comparison with the Ikon 2.25 the Ikon 2.35 has more cushion but with less deformation/twisting of the tire when you like to ride with lower pressure like I do. For me the result is an improved steering, more direct.
    So, very happy so far. I am now thinking of replacing the rear tire also...

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rob1035's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    948
    Any long(er) term thoughts on this combo? I run an Ardent on the front of my rigid N9, looking for a new rear



    Quote Originally Posted by Stopbreakindown View Post
    2.35 Ikon rear / 2.4 Ardent Front


    Untitled by chadledge, on Flickr

  30. #130
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by rob1035 View Post
    Any long(er) term thoughts on this combo? I run an Ardent on the front of my rigid N9, looking for a new rear
    For the past year I've been running this combo.

    (Ikon 2.35 r/ Ra-Ra 2.4 f)
    With great results in all but real wet conditions. 1000+ mi, and still looks new.

    (tapa)

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stopbreakindown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by rob1035 View Post
    Any long(er) term thoughts on this combo? I run an Ardent on the front of my rigid N9, looking for a new rear
    I have this set-up on two different bikes now. Lots of high desert miles ridden so the singletrack is mostly hard pack to sand or hard pack to loose rocks. Traction has been great on the climbs, going into the corners that have sand, the Ardent grabs and the large volume (front and rear) helps float over those short sandy sections. Happy camper.

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    Adding my 2-cents: I'm super happy with the Ikon 2.35's. My 29er (Turner Czar) came with 2.25 Nobby Nic's, which I did not love. I replaced both front and rear with Ikon 2.35's and I'm so happy I did.

    I was skeptical after first installing them because they are not *that* much bigger, and they have much smaller nobs. But I was happy after ride #1, and am still happy 2 months later.

    The two main differences I notice are:

    1) The Ikons are much better on wet-ish rocks and roots. I'm in the north-east and ride over ugly stuff all day long. I hated slippery rocks and roots with the NN's and was always ready (and expecting) to slip. The Ikons are much more confidence inspiring.

    2) When the Ikons let go, the do so more progressively. My perception with NN's is that when the big nobs bite it's great, but when they lose traction they lose it big time. The Ikons seem to grep just as well, if not better, and when they let go it's much less dramatic so you have time to react.

    I'm not putting the NN's back on any time soon, if ever. For races I might go Ikon 2.2 Rear, if not both front and rear.

    Side note: I'm a relatively inexperienced mountain biker if that helps calibrate my review somehow. Maybe if I had talent I'd know how to make the NN's work better. But I love the added confidence I get from the Ikon's, and I don't see why that wouldn't help riders of all levels.

  33. #133
    Frickle Frack
    Reputation: offrdmania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    85
    I run the Ikon 2.2 in the rear and the High Roller II 2.3 in the front. I love this combo because everywhere I ride is sandy and loose gravel

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    Just mounted up my 2.35. Love it. It rubs my reba forkbrace on standing climbs. Kind of a bummer... I like it very much though..

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo 1971 View Post
    Just mounted up my 2.35. Love it. It rubs my reba forkbrace on standing climbs. Kind of a bummer... I like it very much though..
    Do you have super wide rims?

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    No, 28MM (outside Sun/Ringle charger expert) The wheel looks offset in the fork. That seems to be a common problem with Reba forks. I thought about grinding off the little guide "nipples" for the zip tie and increasing a little clearance. Not super bad, but you can notice a good buzz every once in a while. They are new wheels too, so I have not went over them with a spoke wrench yet. I am hoping between these two option I can make it work ok.

  37. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo 1971 View Post
    No, 28MM (outside Sun/Ringle charger expert) The wheel looks offset in the fork. That seems to be a common problem with Reba forks. I thought about grinding off the little guide "nipples" for the zip tie and increasing a little clearance. Not super bad, but you can notice a good buzz every once in a while. They are new wheels too, so I have not went over them with a spoke wrench yet. I am hoping between these two option I can make it work ok.
    Weird, my 2.35's have plenty of clearance in my Reba. But I have slightly narrower rims than yours (arch ex). I also noticed that the wheel was offset in my fork. I switched the wheel around backwards to see if it was wheel dish and it wasn't, so I just took a round file and filed the dropout a bit. Now it's perfectly centered! Worked for me, but do so with caution because I'm 99% sure this voids the warranty

  38. #138
    SS Pusher Man
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo 1971 View Post
    No, 28MM (outside Sun/Ringle charger expert) The wheel looks offset in the fork. That seems to be a common problem with Reba forks. I thought about grinding off the little guide "nipples" for the zip tie and increasing a little clearance. Not super bad, but you can notice a good buzz every once in a while. They are new wheels too, so I have not went over them with a spoke wrench yet. I am hoping between these two option I can make it work ok.
    QR or Maxle?

    I don't have any trouble with tire rub on my Reba w/ 20mm Maxle and that is with 28mm Blunts.
    I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it is requested or not.
    Bucky the Cat

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    Quick release. It only rubs when I stand up to hammer up a hill. I will get a pic

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Wow is that a tight squeeze! What year is the fork? Travel?

    Mine looks like this. 100mm, quick release, 2013 solo air




  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    2009. I git the bike as a left over. This is my second year with it.

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    No clearance problem there. Kinda bummed. I did contact Sram. They are being very helpful at this point. I sent them pics as well.

  44. #144
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,320
    Gonzo, Yes, that's tight. I had similar issues with an Ardent 2.4 on a P-35. Replaced the q/r with a hex bolt skewer, checked the dish, and added a tad more spoke tension. No more issues.

    (tapa)

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    I will try a different skewer. 98% of the time it is fine. Might get spoke tension done tomorrow. After seing what the 29+ guys are doing to the arch, I think I could mod it and be fine.

  46. #146
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,004
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    So I'm thinking about trying the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo a lot of people are having success with. I currently have a butcher 2.3 in the front and a purgatory 2.3 in the back. Grip from this combo is very good but they leave a little to be desired in terms of volume and rolling resistance. They are both right on 2.2" at the tread on my 23mm internal width rims.

    Anyway, how does the Ikon/Ardent combo work in higher speed situations? I was thinking of running it for the Pisgah Enduro. Kitsuma is the fastest stage and tends to be steep, fast, and dusty. I'm hoping the rolling resistance will make the climbing a bit easier without sacrificing too much grip at the limit. Anyone care to re-assure me?
    Kinda late but that's the combo I ran at the Pisgah Enduro (and at the Trans-Sylvania Epic)

    Begin quoting myself:

    Bad Idea Racing: Things to Make Great Bike Race



    "I ran the Ikon 2.35 with 3C Maxx Speed EXO TR, perhaps the most technological jargon and acronym laden tire in the Maxxis lineup, quite a bit this year. Up front with a squish-type Fjox fjork at PMBAR and the 111/55.5 and as a rear tire at the TSEpic and Pisgah Enduro™. It handled both duties with great aplomb, performing unexpectedly well in a myriad of conditions in Pisgah and providing a little extra cush and grip whilst riding amongst the rock strewn trails of Central PA.

    No flats at TSEpic. That, in and of itself, is some kind of Christmas miracle."
    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3¢ every time I post on MTBR.

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    That thing had more badges than an eagle scout!

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    Thanks for all the help. Went after the fork with the dremel today. End of problem. I do not feel I weakened the fork in any way. Same clearance on both sides. I am loving this tire. Enough that ordering the 2.2 for the front was not even a thought. I would have got a new fork first.

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    So I'm thinking about trying the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo a lot of people are having success with. I currently have a butcher 2.3 in the front and a purgatory 2.3 in the back. Grip from this combo is very good but they leave a little to be desired in terms of volume and rolling resistance. They are both right on 2.2" at the tread on my 23mm internal width rims.

    Anyway, how does the Ikon/Ardent combo work in higher speed situations? I was thinking of running it for the Pisgah Enduro. Kitsuma is the fastest stage and tends to be steep, fast, and dusty. I'm hoping the rolling resistance will make the climbing a bit easier without sacrificing too much grip at the limit. Anyone care to re-assure me?
    rusty904 - just wondering if you went with the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo? If so, how do you like it and can you compare to the Butcher/Purg combo? If not, what did you go with? Thanks!

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_mtn View Post
    rusty904 - just wondering if you went with the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo? If so, how do you like it
    I ripped one of my Ikons so I went Ardent 2.4 F / Ikon 2.35 R. I only have 1 ride but I liked it so far.

    One thing I found moderately annoying is that my Ardent 2.4 is actually narrower than the Ikon 2.35, even after being mounted a week. The tread is certainly more aggressive, but it's a slightly narrower tire.

  51. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by matto6 View Post
    I ripped one of my Ikons so I went Ardent 2.4 F / Ikon 2.35 R. I only have 1 ride but I liked it so far.

    One thing I found moderately annoying is that my Ardent 2.4 is actually narrower than the Ikon 2.35, even after being mounted a week. The tread is certainly more aggressive, but it's a slightly narrower tire.
    That's interesting that the Ikon 2.35 is wider than the Ardent 2.4! What make and size diameter and width rims do you have?

    Most of my riding is in the SF bay area where the Ikon probably would be great. My only concern with the IKON is climbing traction in Tahoe where it's very dry, loose and rocky.

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_mtn View Post
    That's interesting that the Ikon 2.35 is wider than the Ardent 2.4! What make and size diameter and width rims do you have?
    I have 29er Enve AM's. 30mm outer, 24mm inner.

    Here's another thread discussing the Ardent 2.4 width. It seems it varies from person to person:

    Maxxis Ardent 2.4: Very Narrow compared to Racing Ralph

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_mtn View Post
    Good thread link, thanks. Are your Ardent and Ikon the EXO versions? I have a Ardent 29x2.4 EXO on my front and it's very large. If I go with an Ikon 2.35 rear it would also be an EXO, and would hope it would not be larger than the Ardent.
    Yep, both are EXO.

  54. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by matto6 View Post
    I have 29er Enve AM's. 30mm outer, 24mm inner.

    Here's another thread discussing the Ardent 2.4 width. It seems it varies from person to person:

    Maxxis Ardent 2.4: Very Narrow compared to Racing Ralph
    Good thread link, thanks. Are your Ardent and Ikon the EXO versions? I have a Ardent 29x2.4 EXO on my front and it's very large. If I go with an Ikon 2.35 rear it would also be an EXO, and would hope it would not be larger than the Ardent.

  55. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_mtn View Post
    rusty904 - just wondering if you went with the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo? If so, how do you like it and can you compare to the Butcher/Purg combo? If not, what did you go with? Thanks!
    I tried out the Ardent/Ikon combo for a bit, not too bad bud not ideal. The ardent's tall, narrow edge knobs tend to squirm on me a bit when I really lean the bike over. It's a feeling a really don't like and it's amplified a bit because of the lack of any real transition knobs. No transition knobs are fine as long as there are nice stable cornering knobs to catch you (ie Minion, butcher). Ardent didn't give me that feeling. The big volume of the tire keeps it somewhat predictable and it rolls pretty well considering what a behemoth it is. Overall not terrible, but I wouldn't buy it again.

    The big Ikon on the back is great, rolls quick and has pretty good bite in the corners. Good traction on the climbs too, especially over rock. Volume is such a big plus. It runs great at about 25PSI. I only found it lacking a bit in braking but that's to be expected in a tire of this type. Also it's a bit scary in wet conditions.

    The race was pretty wet so I went with the butcher/purg combo. Fantastic tire setup. Probably the best all around combo for aggressive riding I've tried. The purg is a bit of a slow roller on the back but the Ikon may have spoiled me for speed. Also, I wish they were true to size. They are more like true 2.2's rather than 2.3's.

    I ended up leaving the butcher/purg on my FS bike and the big Ikon moved to the front of my yelli screamy and I paired it up with a 2.2" Ikon out back. Perfect fast, drifty setup for my local trails here in the foothills. I'll go with more aggressive setup next time I'm in the mountains.

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by rusty904 View Post
    I tried out the Ardent/Ikon combo for a bit, not too bad bud not ideal. The ardent's tall, narrow edge knobs tend to squirm on me a bit when I really lean the bike over. It's a feeling a really don't like and it's amplified a bit because of the lack of any real transition knobs. No transition knobs are fine as long as there are nice stable cornering knobs to catch you (ie Minion, butcher). Ardent didn't give me that feeling. The big volume of the tire keeps it somewhat predictable and it rolls pretty well considering what a behemoth it is. Overall not terrible, but I wouldn't buy it again.

    The big Ikon on the back is great, rolls quick and has pretty good bite in the corners. Good traction on the climbs too, especially over rock. Volume is such a big plus. It runs great at about 25PSI. I only found it lacking a bit in braking but that's to be expected in a tire of this type. Also it's a bit scary in wet conditions.

    The race was pretty wet so I went with the butcher/purg combo. Fantastic tire setup. Probably the best all around combo for aggressive riding I've tried. The purg is a bit of a slow roller on the back but the Ikon may have spoiled me for speed. Also, I wish they were true to size. They are more like true 2.2's rather than 2.3's.

    I ended up leaving the butcher/purg on my FS bike and the big Ikon moved to the front of my yelli screamy and I paired it up with a 2.2" Ikon out back. Perfect fast, drifty setup for my local trails here in the foothills. I'll go with more aggressive setup next time I'm in the mountains.
    Agreed on the Purg 2.3 size really more like a 2.2. I had the previous version Purg 2.2 and the widths are the same. The knobs are larger on the 2.3 however so it's a little heavier and it rolls slower than the 2.2. But traction is fantastic as a rear tire. Appreciate your input on the Butcher, I will consider it as my front Ardent 2.4 wears out. I felt the same as you did regarding Ardent stability when I first got mine, and lowering psi to 16 helped. Or I just got used to it. I do like being able to run the low pressure and I like the volume of the Ardent, two things I might miss having with a Butcher, but traction would probably be more consistent.

    Your yelli screamy sounds like a blast.

    Good to know that the Ikon 2.35 rolls well and has good climbing traction as a rear tire. I am thinking about switching my Purg for the Ikon. Wet conditions won't happen here in NorCal for awhile and I expected braking to not be as strong as the Purg. I enjoy climbing out of the saddle on a FS 29er. Do you know if the Ikon 2.35 is close to the Purg in climbing traction in very dry, loose and steep (30%+) conditions? Thanks for all your input.

  57. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sickmak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    819
    Does anyone know if this beast will fit a Reba? I found more than one person claiming the 2.4 ardent rubbed their reba badly.

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by Sickmak90 View Post
    Does anyone know if this beast will fit a Reba? I found more than one person claiming the 2.4 ardent rubbed their reba badly.
    I run a 2.35 ikon in my 2013 Reba with plenty of clearance. I posted pics earlier in this thread

  59. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252
    ^See post 141 in this thread

  60. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sickmak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    819

    Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by 8iking VIIking View Post
    I run a 2.35 ikon in my 2013 Reba with plenty of clearance. I posted pics earlier in this thread
    Sweet, same year Reba I am running. I may go ahead and try the IKON 2.35 as a front tire. Gave up running Nevegals...tired of sucking wind on the climbs.

    So these roll fast even at 760g for the 3c exo version?
    Last edited by Sickmak90; 07-30-2014 at 06:15 AM.

  61. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    273
    Freshly mounted on a Stan's rapid it's a pretty big tire
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Maxxis Ikon 2.35-image.jpg  


  62. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sickmak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    819

    Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Is that on the rear?

  63. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    273
    Yes here is the front
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Maxxis Ikon 2.35-image.jpg  


  64. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sickmak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    819

    Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Let me know how rock/root traction is if you can. I'm on the fence between these or ardents.

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    Rock traction is great. Not bad on roots either. You will slide on a slippery roots if you hit at enough angle. Then again any tire will. These have never done anything really scary/stupid. When you push them past the limit they let go predictabley. While not a mud tire they do well in "day after the rain" type mud. the floatation of the Ikon in sand is the best I have personally experienced. I am wishing I put a 2.35 on the back too. I was afraid of clearance issues. On worn in mtb trail they are like a cat on carpet for me. I really dont think you will have any regrets.

  66. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sickmak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    819

    Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    I'll probably try a 2.35 front and 2.2 rear, as I don't think the 2.35 will clear the back of my 2013 x-caliber.

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    You will be happy. Cushy front!

  68. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo 1971 View Post
    You will be happy. Cushy front!
    My rear one ended up being bigger than the front once they stretched out a bit. I'll have to swap them in the morning before I ride

  69. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Just another datapoint. On lightbike 35 OD carbon rims, run Ardent 2.5 upfront and Ikon 2.35 outback for 7 months on my ti softtail. I switched the Ikon 2.35 to the front and put a Rocket Ron 2.25 (?) on the back to save some weight. I ride rock, loose rock, scrabble over hard pack and generally dry, dusty trails.

    The Rocket Ron was so atrocious on hard cornering I never noticed what was going on up front with Ikon replacing the Ardent. I couldn't tell if it was tire pressure, squirmy side knobs or lack of side bite due to my wider than normal rims.

    So with limited testing, I'm going to say the Ikon 2.35 is fine up front for loose conditions. BTW ...front 20-22 PSI. Back 26-28

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    496
    I ran Ikon 2.35s front and rear on my 29'er hardtail today for the first time. It felt nice. Definitely good cushion that rolled very well. No issues on rocks, roots, gravel and dirt, but it wasn't the most hardcore day of riding.

  71. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    273
    So I got a good ride in on mine and I have to say they are just perfect. Fast rolling but hook up on everything loose over hard pack, float in sand and small rocks. I'm running 22lbs front and 24lbs rear and they are not squirmy which is surprising cause I'm 215lbs

  72. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    156
    How low can I go? I have 2.35 Ikons tubeless front and rear on 35mm outer width cf rims. I've ridden them as low as 16 psi front and 17 rear without problems but this was where there are no rocks. Yesterday I rode some intermediate rocky terrain and was wishing I could get away with lower pressure than the 18 front and 20 rear I had. I weigh 175 geared and my bike is a carbon hard tail.
    I don't get air and I ride over rocks conservatively and I don't corner hard enough to burp. I think my 35mm wide rims also make burping unlikely and they add a little volume to the tires. How little pressure can I get away with? 16 or 17 in front and 18 rear feels ideal but I don't want to crack one of my new cf rims.
    Thanks!

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    I run 25 front and 28 rear. I really like them there. They got squirmy below that for me. I rode at 15 psi front and rear once. Just because I did not check pressure pre ride Really, not to bad a little squirmy and the traction in hard corners were sketchy. I was really suprised how they handled in spite of the low pressure. 20 - 25 is as low as I wohld go on purpose though.

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: csmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    96
    Hi All,

    Quick question (and sorry if it's been answered): I just got a 3C/maxx speed/EXO 2.35 Ikon. It is NOT tubeless ready, i.e it's not stamped TR on the sidewall. Any issues mounting it tubeless? I'm gonna put it on a Surly Rabbit Hole that's now got a Chunky Monkey that I mounted tubeless using a split tube.

    Just want to see what others have experienced regarding the non TR Ikon.

    Thanks!

  75. #175
    SS Pusher Man
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,321
    Quote Originally Posted by csmo View Post
    Hi All,

    Quick question (and sorry if it's been answered): I just got a 3C/maxx speed/EXO 2.35 Ikon. It is NOT tubeless ready, i.e it's not stamped TR on the sidewall. Any issues mounting it tubeless? I'm gonna put it on a Surly Rabbit Hole that's now got a Chunky Monkey that I mounted tubeless using a split tube.

    Just want to see what others have experienced regarding the non TR Ikon.

    Thanks!

    You can pretty much set up any tire tubeless.

    Non tubeless tires usually don't have as strong a bead.

    I ran the non TR EXO Ikon and Ardent tubeless without issue.
    I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it is requested or not.
    Bucky the Cat

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: csmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    96
    Thanks! That's what I was hoping to hear. The Chunky Monkey on there now is not TR nor is the Rabbit Hole rim and they're doing great. Thanks again

    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikej View Post
    You can pretty much set up any tire tubeless.

    Non tubeless tires usually don't have as strong a bead.

    I ran the non TR EXO Ikon and Ardent tubeless without issue.

  77. #177
    SS Pusher Man
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,321
    Quote Originally Posted by dugt View Post
    How low can I go? I have 2.35 Ikons tubeless front and rear on 35mm outer width cf rims. I've ridden them as low as 16 psi front and 17 rear without problems but this was where there are no rocks. Yesterday I rode some intermediate rocky terrain and was wishing I could get away with lower pressure than the 18 front and 20 rear I had. I weigh 175 geared and my bike is a carbon hard tail.
    I don't get air and I ride over rocks conservatively and I don't corner hard enough to burp. I think my 35mm wide rims also make burping unlikely and they add a little volume to the tires. How little pressure can I get away with? 16 or 17 in front and 18 rear feels ideal but I don't want to crack one of my new cf rims.
    Thanks!
    I find that the EXO versions of Maxxis tires don't like to be run at high pressure.

    At 180-185 lbs, the Ardent Race TR/EXO felt like concrete above 24 lbs. It would get really squirmy at about 18 lbs. 20-22 was the sweet spot.

    Same with the Ardent 2.4 Exo

    Whereas the non EXO Ardent 2.25 was perfectly happy around 26-29 psi.
    I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it is requested or not.
    Bucky the Cat

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: csmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    96
    Good to know--thanks. I have an Ardent Exo on the front of one bike and run it around 20-22. I'm about 10 pounds lighter. It does very well. I am going to run the Ikon on the rear of my Jones and will fiddle with pressures to see how low I can go, but anywhere from 17-20 will make me happy. Keep in mind this is on a 50mm rim that spreads tires out considerably.

    Very informative thread, by the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikej View Post
    I find that the EXO versions of Maxxis tires don't like to be run at high pressure.

    At 180-185 lbs, the Ardent Race TR/EXO felt like concrete above 24 lbs. It would get really squirmy at about 18 lbs. 20-22 was the sweet spot.

    Same with the Ardent 2.4 Exo

    Whereas the non EXO Ardent 2.25 was perfectly happy around 26-29 psi.

  79. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikej View Post
    I find that the EXO versions of Maxxis tires don't like to be run at high pressure.

    At 180-185 lbs, the Ardent Race TR/EXO felt like concrete above 24 lbs. It would get really squirmy at about 18 lbs. 20-22 was the sweet spot.

    Same with the Ardent 2.4 Exo

    Whereas the non EXO Ardent 2.25 was perfectly happy around 26-29 psi.
    I second this. The exo versions have pretty stiff sidewalls so they like lower pressures than non-reinforced sidewall tires. I've found my 2.35 ikon exo on the front performs best at around 22 psi on my 21mm rims (180 lb rider)

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    156
    Thanks for the replies about Ikon air pressure. I'm really glad no one had a good reason for me to use much higher pressure. My Ikon's are EXO also so I will keep them around 19-20 psi.
    dt
    Last edited by dugt; 08-26-2014 at 06:51 AM.

  81. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    Like Stan's recomends. Weight divided by 7 equals starting point. Minus one psi front, plus two rear. Then adjust to taste.
    Last edited by Gonzo 1971; 08-26-2014 at 06:43 AM.

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: csmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    96
    Maxxis Ikon 2.35-photo.jpgI mounted my Ikon last night, split-tube tubeless to a 50mm Surly Rabbit Hole. I used a CO2 and the tire aired right up. Pumped it with the floor pump and the bead popped. All went smoothly. I lost a little air over the night. But I pumped it up, took it for a ride, and things seem to be holding for now. As for the ride: wow! What a difference b/w the Chunky Monkey and the 2.35 Ikon. My Jones felt like a rocket.

  83. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kragu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,570
    Anyone running the Ikon out back on a longer travel bike? WFO, Enduro 29, Carbine, Lunchbox? I'm running dual ChMonks and love the grip, but I'm looking to get something that rolls a tad better as a second option. I'd hope to not give up too much grip...

  84. #184
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,320

    Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Bholwell had one on the back of his Prime. I've debated it on mine, too.when I get a 2nd pair of wheels, I probably will.

  85. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by kragu View Post
    Anyone running the Ikon out back on a longer travel bike? WFO, Enduro 29, Carbine, Lunchbox? I'm running dual ChMonks and love the grip, but I'm looking to get something that rolls a tad better as a second option. I'd hope to not give up too much grip...
    I use one on the back of my Process 111. It's not a long travel bike but I definitely ride it like one. Lift access on Beech MTN, Pisgah downhills, etc. I'd say the Ikon will give you plenty of grip in dry conditions. You loose out some in braking grip mostly. Any you have to be ready to slide around a bit. I personally love it paired up with a grippy front tire. Like I said in an earlier post, I think the massive volume makes the sliding very predictable.

  86. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    971
    I run an Ikon 2:35 on th back of my TBLTc and I think it grips well, not super grippy but considering the rolling resistance and light weight. I run a Butcher up front and the back stays put .

  87. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ACLakey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    541
    I ran one with a 2.5 minion on the front. It did fine in everything except for steep loose downhills. Rolls very fast.

    Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

  88. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    273
    Running them both front and rear in south Texas and it's my favorite tire thus far. Lots of volume good grip and speed.

    If anyone needs a pair of racing Ralph's with 20 miles on them pm me

  89. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Maxxis Ikon 2.35-img_8082e-s.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Bholwell had one on the back of his Prime. I've debated it on mine, too.when I get a 2nd pair of wheels, I probably will.
    I'm still rockin it, too. I have yet to find a better combination of speed and grip for most of the riding I do.
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  90. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,627
    How do these compare to an Ardent as a REAR tire only? I'm running a DHF up front so that might be a little wonky, just exploring all options.

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    314
    I'm currently riding a Salsa El-Mariachi with rigid cromoto fork. I have a Schable Nobby Nic 2.25 @ 24psi Front and a Maxxis Crossmark 2.10 @ 28psi Rear. I'm around 200lbs with riding kit and camelbak.
    This feels good but now Mud is starting to appear the Crossmark is very slippy. I'm thinking I'll put a 2.35 Ikon on the front and move the Nobby Nic to the rear. Any thoughts on this?

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Tea@Dimbola View Post
    I'm currently riding a Salsa El-Mariachi with rigid cromoto fork. I have a Schable Nobby Nic 2.25 @ 24psi Front and a Maxxis Crossmark 2.10 @ 28psi Rear. I'm around 200lbs with riding kit and camelbak.
    This feels good but now Mud is starting to appear the Crossmark is very slippy. I'm thinking I'll put a 2.35 Ikon on the front and move the Nobby Nic to the rear. Any thoughts on this?
    I wouldn't... Can't imagine the ikon being very good in mud and having a slippery front is a lot more concerning than in the rear.

  93. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Tea@Dimbola View Post
    This feels good but now Mud is starting to appear the Crossmark is very slippy. I'm thinking I'll put a 2.35 Ikon on the front and move the Nobby Nic to the rear. Any thoughts on this?
    I would do the exact opposite. NN front Ikon rear, or NN f&r.

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    314
    Thoughts received loud and clear (thank you) Some re-thinking happening this end.

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bikeboardorblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_8082e-s.jpg 
Views:	4323 
Size:	158.4 KB 
ID:	920579

    I'm still rockin it, too. I have yet to find a better combination of speed and grip for most of the riding I do.
    bhowell, is that a DHF mounted in reverse up front? Care to share your thoughts on it?

  96. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo 1971 View Post
    Like Stan's recomends. Weight divided by 7 equals starting point. Minus one psi front, plus two rear. Then adjust to taste.
    Suprisingly accurate form me!

  97. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Gonzo 1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    326
    I have noticed with the 2.35. That 5 psi less in the front compared to the 2.2 rear works well.

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    33
    I am using the 2.35 Ikon front and back on loose, dry conditions(san diego). These tires are a great deal better than the stock tires on my bike (2013 trek superbly al 100 elite). These tires, for me, are perfect for my conditions. I would highly recommend these tire. Also, I found them cheap on amazon(if price matters).

  99. #199
    May contain nuts
    Reputation: Haggis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,192
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeboardorblade View Post
    bhowell, is that a DHF mounted in reverse up front? Care to share your thoughts on it?
    Also looks like an Ardent on the rear, not an Ikon... I run an Ikon 2.35 on my hardtail front and an Ikon 2.2 on the rear, excellent combo for most conditions, just not as much grip as you want in deep loose stuff (who'da thought). I run a clipped DHR2 (27.5) on the front of my bouncy bike and find it works great in all conditions (we get mud, clay, dust, gravel). Easily as good as the DHF.

  100. #200
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,093
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeboardorblade View Post
    bhowell, is that a DHF mounted in reverse up front? Care to share your thoughts on it?
    That's the way I usually see it mounted, with the center block sipes pointed towards the center and the L-shaped corner knobs' wide part forward. It has slight ramps on the leading edge of the knobs mounted in this direction, for faster rolling. As Haggis pointed out, that does look like an Ardent rear tire in the pic.

    I'm running a Ikon 2.2 rear, but had to downsize my rotor to 160mm since it was breaking loose too easily with 180s. This thread gives me the impression that a 2.35 might suit my bike better and would've been okay with the 180 rotors, but I find the 2.2 is good enough to keep on to wear out.

    Found a good image of some of the tires mentioned in this thread here (click). Can see the visual differences between the TR casings and the eXCeption casing (Ikon 2.35, 3rd from left) as well, such as the bead and how smooth and dense the sidewalls look.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Maxxis iKon
    By georgelza in forum 27.5
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-06-2013, 02:09 PM
  2. Maxxis Ikon
    By tigerwah in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-21-2011, 03:09 PM
  3. Maxxis Ikon (without EXO)?
    By phlegm in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-16-2011, 07:58 PM
  4. maxxis crossmark and maxxis ikon
    By neeeko in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-04-2011, 07:04 AM
  5. Maxxis Ikon
    By rufus in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 02:22 PM

Members who have read this thread: 72

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.