Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 120
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    437

    Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Has anyone tried the new Ikon 2.35 as a front tire and how does it compare to the Ardent 2.4, Noby Nick, and other toothier front tires? I think the weight is very good for a large front tire but how does it stick in loose conditions?

  2. #2
    Meat Clever
    Reputation: DirtDummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    666
    paging Bruce Brown, BB to the white courtesy phone, please...

    his previous comments : New Maxxis 29er tires 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaEps View Post
    A little bit of pee just trickled out of my pipi when I saw that.

  3. #3
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,867
    Quote Originally Posted by DirtDummy View Post
    paging Bruce Brown, BB to the white courtesy phone, please...

    his previous comments : New Maxxis 29er tires 2013
    It's all in that thread. Better rolling resistance (faster) than the Nic and the Ardent. Lighter than both. Yet plenty of bite for XC cornering. In terms of "loose" conditions, we haven't had to much dry/loose this year due to the rain and snow - so it's hard to tell. I've only ridden hero dirt in races on it this spring. But it sticks at full race speed in corners and I haven't had it give up any corner yet. My rear 2.2 Ikon was all over the place yesterday, but the 2.35 was golden.
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    437
    BB, thanks for the info. I had read your previous post but not focused enough to pick up the comparison to the other tires. I am liking the Ardent 2.4 but sometimes I think its a bit heavy for long XC rides, mine weighed 790 g. I have tried other tires that were 650g to 690g and they seemed to corner good enough. I think I will give the 2.35 a go.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stopbreakindown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    295
    FWIW I bought one that weighed in at 764g

    Edit: Talking about the Ikon 2.35
    Last edited by Stopbreakindown; 05-12-2013 at 09:26 PM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    437
    My Ardent had been used with Stans which I had wiped off, but some must still be in the tire walls. With that it does weigh 790.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    588
    Ardent and ikon are completely different animals. I don't think I'd use the ikon as a front tire unless it was strictly for XC racing. the extra volume doesn't change the basic design of the tire...keep in mind that the 2.2 ikon was extremely small. At 790 grams (or whatever yours weighed)...the ardent isn't really that heavy. Youll find many heavier tires, and alot of the lighter weight ones are made for rolling resistance as first priority. In the rear, thats a whole different story...the ikon is an awesome rear tire suitable for a lot of different riding disciplines.

  8. #8
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,867
    Quote Originally Posted by drz400sm View Post
    Ardent and ikon are completely different animals. I don't think I'd use the ikon as a front tire unless it was strictly for XC racing. the extra volume doesn't change the basic design of the tire...keep in mind that the 2.2 ikon was extremely small. At 790 grams (or whatever yours weighed)...the ardent isn't really that heavy. Youll find many heavier tires, and alot of the lighter weight ones are made for rolling resistance as first priority. In the rear, thats a whole different story...the ikon is an awesome rear tire suitable for a lot of different riding disciplines.
    Side lugs are taller on the new Ikon 2.35 compared to the 2.2. This opens it up as an excellent larger volume front tire due to the combination of the contact patch and taller lugs making it worthy of consideration. Certainly, if one is seeking more friction up front then an Ardent and Nic would provide that.
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  9. #9
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,867
    Quote Originally Posted by fruitafrank View Post
    BB, thanks for the info. I had read your previous post but not focused enough to pick up the comparison to the other tires. I am liking the Ardent 2.4 but sometimes I think its a bit heavy for long XC rides, mine weighed 790 g. I have tried other tires that were 650g to 690g and they seemed to corner good enough. I think I will give the 2.35 a go.
    For XC riding - you'll enjoy the Ikon 2.35 up front. Rolls much faster than the monster truck tire Ardent and is very assuring up front. I think it is safe to say that far too many riders "over tire" their bikes for their local trail conditions (me included). Luckily, BH designed the new 2.35 Ikon without increasing the knob height of the center tread so you still get good speed with it. The taller side lugs he used in his new design provide the type of front tire bite when needed. This increase in volume and taller side lugs makes it much more of an all arounder than I was expecting when I received it last fall for testing.

    I'm sure others will pipe up with their experience using it. Comment at this weekend's race by another racer (and MTBR.com member) when he looked at my Ikon 2.35 front tire: "That's a big tire."
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,597
    I'm currently deciding between the 2.35 Racing Ralph and the 2.35 Ikon as my front race tire so am curious to see how this thread pans out. For my trail wheels I use either an Ardent 2.4 of a 2.35 Nobby Nic. It tried the Nobby Nic as a race tire this past weekend and that amount of bite/tread is just not necessary for racing. The 2.4 Ardent has been my favorite trail front tire for a while now, but the Nobby Nic had some nice properties. I wouldn't consider the Ikon a comparable tire to the Nobby Nic or the Ardent as the Ikon is a much less aggressive tire meant for fast rolling and low weight.
    I'm definitely guilty of "over tiring" to a degree, but those aggressive side knobs on the Ardent and Nobby Nic have probably saved me a handful of times when my front tire got loose and was able to recover.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    437
    Thanks for the input guys. I like to experiment with tires to see what diff. in ride quality I get .So if I can save 100+ grams and the tire rolls well then its interesting. A friend who rides all mtn.trails thought the new Ikon looked good, so now to try it. I really liked the 2.2 Ikon as a rear but sliced 2 of them in 2 months so diff. rear now. FWIW I ran a Kenda 2.35 small Block Eight many years ago in Moab and was shocked at how well it performed [except in mud ], on my 26" bike.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTscoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,124
    Bruce, can you get casing width, tread width and overall height numbers on the 2.2 vs the 2.35 Ikon?

    Here are your numbers from the other thread for the 2.35 Ikon but wondering about overall height increase to see if I can squeeze one into the back of my Paradox:
    I've got about 24 psi up front at the moment and the tire measured:

    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown
    58.1 mm casing width
    59.14 mm tread width
    I've got a pretty worn 2.2 Ikon in the back and am mainly worried about casing/tread width more than overall height but all need to be considered since it'll be a tight squeeze.

    EDIT: Nevermind found the comparison numbers:
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown
    First off, when compared with the Ikon 2.2 on the rear, the 2.35 is 5-6mm taller from rim to top of center tread. Take that times 2 and the height of the wheel is a full 10-12mm taller than the 2.2 Ikon I am comparing it to for that measurement. The casing width is 2.5mm wider than the 2.2 Ikon, and the tread width is 5mm wider than the 2.2 version.
    Last edited by GTscoob; 05-14-2013 at 07:23 AM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    588
    yea, i heard the side lugs are little taller...but at the end of the day its still a cross country tire. The 2.4 option just makes it closer in size to other 2.25-2.35 tires on the market. The great thing about tires is we have tons of options, and none of us are forced to use one particular tire. At least for me, I wouldnt feel as confident running it up front, compared to something like the Ardent, Nobby Nic, HansD, etc. For XC riding, thats a different story...id have no problem using it...but for aggressive riding and loose terrain it may be worth the weight penalty and go with something else.

    Maybe I misunderstood the OP. It seemed like he was putting it in the same category as an ardent or Nobby Nic. To me, id compare the Ikon to a Racing Ralph...and an Ardent to a Nobby Nic (Maxxis - Schwalbe). Either way, Im glad to see they made a larger volume version of the Ikon, the 2.2 version was such a small tire and ive only had luck with it in the rear. Opens the doors to more riders using it and giving us real world feedback.

  14. #14
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,867
    Quote Originally Posted by drz400sm View Post
    yea, i heard the side lugs are little taller...but at the end of the day its still a cross country tire. The 2.4 option just makes it closer in size to other 2.25-2.35 tires on the market. The great thing about tires is we have tons of options, and none of us are forced to use one particular tire. At least for me, I wouldnt feel as confident running it up front, compared to something like the Ardent, Nobby Nic, HansD, etc. For XC riding, thats a different story...id have no problem using it...but for aggressive riding and loose terrain it may be worth the weight penalty and go with something else.

    Maybe I misunderstood the OP. It seemed like he was putting it in the same category as an ardent or Nobby Nic. To me, id compare the Ikon to a Racing Ralph...and an Ardent to a Nobby Nic (Maxxis - Schwalbe). Either way, Im glad to see they made a larger volume version of the Ikon, the 2.2 version was such a small tire and ive only had luck with it in the rear. Opens the doors to more riders using it and giving us real world feedback.
    I've got the Ralph 2.25, Ralph 2.4's on my Karate Monkey, Nic 2.35's and 2.25's which I used solely last year on my JET and RIP due to the drought causing loose and dry conditions here in the Midwest, I've got the Ardent 2.4's and the LUST 2.25's. The only tire I don't have that you mention is the Hans Dampf (no need for that where I live and ride). I've got plenty of hours, rides, races, on all of the tires - enough to form an opinion and make a judgement call on all of them.

    The Ikon 2.35 is so different from the 2.2, it's difficult to even consider them in the same category (outside of the center lugs and sharing the same name). The change in volume and side lug height does make this a much more aggressive XC tire.

    Similar drastic differences due to volume and lugs between a Crow 2.0 and a Raven 2.2. Or a Bontrager XR 1.8 and a Bontrager XR 2.25 front tire (that was a few years ago!!!).

    I've ridden it in hero dirt this spring, fall dry and loose drought dirt, frozen dirt, mud this spring, snow, sand and have to say it is a very confidence inspiring front tire. Trumps my Ralphs - especially when moisture and roots are involved. Digs in on aggressive cornering and hooks up quicker than a Nic on corners. I'd say my Nic 2.35's on the RIP are more sure footed and all arounders than the Ardent 2.4's on the same bike. I've had both out in the Black Hills tearing up some fun trail (Storm, M Hill, Dakota Five-0, etc....) and although those tires are a blast here in the Midwest - I consider them overkill or over-tire for the 29"er platform Midwest wise - be it cross country or aggressive cross country.

    So if I had to color the Ikon 2.35, I would say it is "less overkill" or "less over-tire" than the Nic 2.35 or Ardents 2.4 because those tires create a lot of friction and require a lot more watts to produce the same speed on climbs and flats which is a huge penalty engine wise. For those that have noticed a difference between the smaller 2.25 Nics and 2.25 Ardents compared to the 2.35 and 2.4 versions - there's even more of a difference - IMO - between the 2.2 Ikon and 2.35 Ikon due to the side lug height difference.

    IkonFrontTest

    IkonFrontTestToo

    No tire is perfect for everyone, but I am standing firm that the Ikon 2.35 is a lot more aggressive than most will need for typical XC riding solely based on the volume and the additional height in the side lugs which allow you to really lay this tire over and it hooks up immediately. Running it front and rear would be pretty plush and ideal for a SS or rigid bike, or aggressive enough for a sweet spot fully (120-130mm of travel) for some all around riding.

    Although I haven't tried it yet, but a fun combination would be the Ikon 2.35 up front and the IRD Fire XC Pro (or Nic 2.25, or Ardent 2.25) in the rear if one wants a more aggressive XC tire combination.

    That being said, today's ride will be on less aggressive Renegade 2.3's front and rear....

    P1010066

    On hero dirt, of course.
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,059
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post

    No tire is perfect for everyone, but I am standing firm that the Ikon 2.35 is a lot more aggressive than most will need for typical XC riding solely based on the volume and the additional height in the side lugs which allow you to really lay this tire over and it hooks up immediately. Running it front and rear would be pretty plush and ideal for a SS or rigid bike, or aggressive enough for a sweet spot fully (120-130mm of travel) for some all around riding.
    Spot on. I'm currently running a 29x2.35 Ikon on the rear of my Banshee Prime (paired with a High Roller II up front), and it's a really nice combo for aggressive riding; a step up from the Ardent 2.25 it replaced in all regards. It impresses even me with how much grip it provides when considering the low rolling resistance.
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,597
    This thread was enough to convince me to get a 2.35 Ikon. Someone had mentioned to get the non-exo model because it's more supple, but I was unable to find one of those so EXO casing it is. I should have it by the end of the week and like a true moron, I'll pop it on tubeless and race with it only after running it around on some pavement to try and break it in. I really don't like the Nobby Nic I tried out as a front tire and want it off as soon as possible. I think it will make a great rear tire on my trail wheels so not all is lost.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,772
    Mounted up Ikon 2.2's I just bought and it looked quite a bit smaller than the Saguaro 2.2 it replaced. I'm going to have to look into the Ikon 2.35's.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    521
    BruceBrown: Could you do me a favor and get some measurements of the Renegade 2.3s? I was running a Purgatory 2.3/Renegade 1.95 on my rigid Niner and the newer Specialized tires are now measuring smaller than advertised. New Purg 2.3 now measures 2.2 and my old Renegade 1.95 measures 2.1 so I'm wondering if the new Renegade also measures 2.2.

    I dropped by my LBS to see if they had the Ikon 2.35 and they said they could order one for $80. Sounds like an awesome tire, but Specialized Control tires are $55 so I'm wondering if the Ikon is $25 better than a Ground Control 2.3 or Fast Trak 2.2. The Renegade is super fast and is unstoppable on hardpack, but doesn't handle loose climbs very well. (uh duh)
    Santa Cruz Bronson - Niner EMD9 Rigid

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,597
    The 2.35 Ikon is awesome. Fast enough for racing, grippy enough for trail days. Big volume is fantastic over rocks and roots. Huge fan. It's the front tire I was looking for.

  20. #20
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,867
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtdan View Post
    The 2.35 Ikon is awesome. Fast enough for racing, grippy enough for trail days. Big volume is fantastic over rocks and roots. Huge fan. It's the front tire I was looking for.
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  21. #21
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,867
    Quote Originally Posted by killjoyken View Post
    BruceBrown: Could you do me a favor and get some measurements of the Renegade 2.3s? I was running a Purgatory 2.3/Renegade 1.95 on my rigid Niner and the newer Specialized tires are now measuring smaller than advertised. New Purg 2.3 now measures 2.2 and my old Renegade 1.95 measures 2.1 so I'm wondering if the new Renegade also measures 2.2.
    Whether we are talking about the Ikon 2.35 or the Renegade 2.3 or most tires - it takes more time than one thinks for the tire to expand and grow a mm or two after installing. The 2.3 Renegades (Control version) will grow their casing width at least a full mm to 58mm (or 58.x mm) given a couple of weeks - or more - after the initial install had them measure out at 57mm in casing width. At least they did on my Light Bicycle carbon AM rims where they measure 58.x mm now. So they were a full 2.3" after 3 weeks and some good rides on them. The Ikon 2.35 took plenty of time to grow as well on the similar Roval wider rim (took a few months actually).

    Quote Originally Posted by killjoyken View Post
    I dropped by my LBS to see if they had the Ikon 2.35 and they said they could order one for $80. Sounds like an awesome tire, but Specialized Control tires are $55 so I'm wondering if the Ikon is $25 better than a Ground Control 2.3 or Fast Trak 2.2. The Renegade is super fast and is unstoppable on hardpack, but doesn't handle loose climbs very well. (uh duh)
    Right. We're talking about 2 different types of tires here between the Renegade and the Ikon 2.35. The Ikon has more friction, weighs more, and is much more suitable as an aggressive XC front tire than the Renegade (620g for the control version and 570g for the S-Works version). The Ikon has a square tread profile, and the Renegade is much rounder. If you know the Raven 2.2 - the Renegade is very similar in profile, performance and feel - but better in all of those than the Raven.

    I also don't know the longevity yet of the center tread on a Renegade. I've read various reports saying not to expect more than 3 months out of them, but the poster who said that didn't quantify if he had been hitting some pavement or dirt only and didn't mention the type of soil/terrain and his braking technique. I've been running the Ikon 2.35 up front on my JET 9 for 7 months now and it shows no visible signs of wear as of yet.

    The Renegade is a pure XC and race tire, so the shorter center tread knobs, lighter overall weight, etc... should probably mirror the longevity of other minimal tread 29"er tires (Raven 2.2, Maxxlites, Crows, XR's, etc...). It's a "Big Velcro" volume tire that hooks up surprisingly well front and rear, but you're right - staying seated is not bad advice on power climbs with a Renegade in the rear (the same is true for all minimal tread XC race tires). Seems to work well on my RIP 9 where the suspension does a lot of work keeping tires glued to the trail.

    I can't answer your question of the Ikon 2.35 for $25 more is worth that cash over a Specialized Control (haven't tried that one) of Fast Trak (haven't tried that one). I just know the Ikon is an excellent aggressive XC tire. I wouldn't hesitate to run it up front, nor would I hesitate to run it front and rear on a singlespeed or my RIP 9 if I wanted an aggressive set up to head out to the mountains.
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,772
    Any others that measured the weight? I'm interested in the non-EXO version (685g claimed weight on their site). I've got the 2.2 (non-EXO) on my XC bike and really like it. 2.35 will be nice on the rear of my other bike, mounted on P35's.

  23. #23
    Dickhouse
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    291
    I still haven't found a front tire that comes close to the perfection of the OLD WTB Weirwolf 2.55, in terms of volume, rolling resistance, tread design. Maybe the Ikon 2.35 will be my new baby!!

  24. #24
    ready to ride
    Reputation: mattnmtns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by dickt3030 View Post
    I still haven't found a front tire that comes close to the perfection of the OLD WTB Weirwolf 2.55, in terms of volume, rolling resistance, tread design. Maybe the Ikon 2.35 will be my new baby!!
    Same here. Luckily I still have a lot of life in one bit everything I have been reading bout the new ikon sounds perfect. Sure there are times I want something more agressive an I will switch out but for 99% of my riding I want it all. Fast,light, and hooks up. Guess I cat get cheap in there too.

    Looking forward to give the new ikon for a spin as my front.
    Sent via my heady vibes from the heart of Pisgahstan

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fueledbymetal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    657
    I just rocked it for a week at TSE - I'd say it's better for sure than the 2.2 up front but not quite as grippy as the 2.4 Ardent. Overall I'm pleased with it and will keep it up front on my FS and keep running the 2.4 ardent on my rigid SS's.
    2013 Cannondale Scalpel 29er 1x10
    2012 Seven ti 29er SS rigid
    2012 Seven steel 29er SS rigid
    Southern Maryland Crew

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Maxxis iKon
    By georgelza in forum 27.5 - 650b
    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

Posting Permissions

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