Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 463
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    971

    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
    676
    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
    9,613
    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.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    971
    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
    791
    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
    971
    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
    629
    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
    9,613
    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.

  9. #9
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    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."

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    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
    971
    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
    2,328
    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
    629
    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
    9,613
    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.

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7166535@N05/8387147540/" title="IkonFrontTest by BBcamerata, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8500/8387147540_0fafce81cc_c.jpg" width="782" height="800" alt="IkonFrontTest"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7166535@N05/8386061631/" title="IkonFrontTestToo by BBcamerata, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8517/8386061631_1258d469ae_c.jpg" width="600" height="800" alt="IkonFrontTestToo"></a>

    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....

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7166535@N05/8734534375/" title="P1010066 by BBcamerata, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7297/8734534375_feee65b776_c.jpg" width="800" height="517" alt="P1010066"></a>

    On hero dirt, of course.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,248
    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
    1,619
    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
    2,185
    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
    589
    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)
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    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
    9,613
    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.

  21. #21
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    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.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,185
    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
    296
    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!!
    Something with wheels and brakes.

    92Fifty' Race Team

  24. #24
    ready to ride
    Reputation: mattnmtns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    846
    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
    834
    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.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: killjoyken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    589
    Thanks for the info Bruce. I actually just swapped on a new 2.4 Ardent Exo and a 2.2 Ikon 3C EXC Exo onto my rigid (came on my SB95) and I must say that I'm impressed with the performance. They're a little slower than the Purg/Rene combo, but the Ikon blows the Renegade away when things get loose. When it does let go, it's very predictable and gives a nice controllable drift. I would love to swap a Fast Trak to the back for a direct comparison, but it was a major pain seating the bead on my i19 so it's staying on til it's worn out.

    I'm guessing the Ardent is the cause of the slower speed, but it's got so much grip that I may be willing to sacrifice the speed. If I can ever find a good deal for an Ikon 2.35 I'll definately swap the Ardent out in the front. I haven't run Maxxis tires in years due to cost and ease of mounting tubeless (Specialized wins easily), but now I can see why people like them.
    Ibis Mojo HD3 - Norco Torrent 7.1

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,578
    Just mounted a 2.35 Ikon EXC. Weighed in at 650g. Width right after mounting was 2.25 on a 24mm rim. Tire looks awesome.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,185
    ktm520 - thanks for the info. Sounds like I'm going to be ordering this soon.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    103
    I live in Austin. Lots of roots, rocks, loose over hard park, and hard pack/dust. I mounted up the 2.35 Ikon on the front of my Trance X 29er and left my well work 2.25 Nobby Nic on the back. The 2.35 Ikon is AWESOME. Great turn in, tons of grip, super high volume. So far I love this tire, and I'll be replacing the rear with one as well.


  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BacDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    613
    Some great ride reports and feedback on this tire, can anyone comment on how this compares to the panaracer rampage 2.35? Looks similar and I always liked the rampage as a front tire and want to know how this compares.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    108
    Tubeless report on the 2.35? I have the pacenti tl 28
    rim which is much like a Stan's profile. I would be interested if they mount up ok and stay tubeless.

  32. #32
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by skey44 View Post
    Tubeless report on the 2.35? I have the pacenti tl 28
    rim which is much like a Stan's profile. I would be interested if they mount up ok and stay tubeless.
    Work great tubeless. I've only run mine on the Roval carbon rims (Trail/AM version).

  33. #33
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,320
    Mounted mine up as a rear last Thursday tubeless on a Flow. Used a tube to seat the bead, popped one-side added the valve plus 2 scoops, and seated it with a compressor. Did the Stan's shake 4 x each side and let hang on a hook until today when I found it had leaked air. Likely culprit was the valve stem, which I tightened, and then rode this evening without any air loss.

    First impressions at 28 psi was that it rolls fast, and hooks up well. In spots, trails were pretty wet, and it no problems. Look forward to further rides, and believe I've found my new big volume, go-to, rear tire.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    108
    How would you compare the bead diameter to schwalbe tlr? I find schwalbe to be slightly loose on my tl-28 and crests.

  35. #35
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Didn't notice it being too loose, or tight, and have had great success with Maxxis EXO's tubeless on Flows.

    Think this big(ger) volume Ikon will be sweet to my rigid-riding SS Clyde azz.

    (by phone)

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    108
    Thanks for the replies now to get one in my hands for when the rr RaRa SS gives it up. Thanks for all the great info on this new tire. I feel like I can order it over the RaRa for the extra width, cushion, and rim protection (high volume to prevent dings at low psi) with little compromise if not better grip, durability, tubeless performance, wear, weight, and rolling resistance. I'm excited as this sounds like the tire I've been looking for. Our local "piedmont forest" trails should be prime stomping grounds for this rubber. I showed a friend from an LBS and his first reaction was to try it frt/rr on his new wheel set to compare back to back with RaRa front rr ( his current setup).

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ktm520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,578
    Got a second EXC that weighed in at 640g

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,509
    Bruce,

    do you recommend the 3C or the 3C/EXO if I'm going to run tubeless?

  39. #39
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jochribs View Post
    Bruce,

    do you recommend the 3C or the 3C/EXO if I'm going to run tubeless?
    I haven't tried the EXO versions of any Ikon tire. I've run all of mine (2.2 and the new 2.35) just fine tubeless with NoTubes sealant. The 2.2 for years, the new 2.35 since last fall (test tire).

    The better question would be what kind of sharp things do you face on your local trails? Sidewall cuts/tears are not that common in the part of the Midwest where I live and ride - so no need for the EXO here. In 10 years, I've torn one Racing Ralph (which I patched and still run) and one Bontrager XR 2.25 many years back which I also patched.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,509
    3C it is... We're rocky here, but the rocks are 'generally' round edged. Mica Schist. (Wissahickon Schist)

    I'm running S-Works Renegades without any real issues with the sidewalls. Got a scuff a while back but it hasn't gotten worse, nor have I sustained anymore. Changed over to tubeless with them last week and they are holding fine. I cleaned the area inside the tire and threw on a square of Gorilla Tape for back up.

    Thanks Bruce.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    808
    I can't find one of those 2.35's anywhere been searching like crazy. BB how does the Renagade 2.35 compare to the ikon in ur opinion?
    "It Is What It Is" Phil 4:13
    B-Ray Da Beast

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by B-RAY View Post
    I can't find one of those 2.35's anywhere been searching like crazy. BB how does the Renagade 2.35 compare to the ikon in ur opinion?
    Ditto! These sound great, but I looked around a bit and can't find the 2.35s. How do we get them?

  43. #43
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by B-RAY View Post
    I can't find one of those 2.35's anywhere been searching like crazy. BB how does the Renagade 2.35 compare to the ikon in ur opinion?
    Did you try the Maxxis eStore?

    Obviously, 2 different tires. The Renegade 2.3 is a big volume, very rounded profile XC tire that is light and quick, yet has plenty of traction for XC racing and riding. It has more minimal tread - especially the side lugs. The Ikon 2.35 is much more aggressive XC to even trail tire that is smack dab between an Ardent 2.4 and the Ikon 2.2. In terms of up front for sure footed handling, the Ikon tops the Renegade for cornering bite and braking bite. I've only run it up front as it is too aggressive for my needs in the rear. Although I would like to have it front and rear on my Karate Monkey singlespeed. The Renegade 2.3 is the largest volume minimal tread tire that I am aware of - so the contact patch and big volume provide the majority of the traction.

    Both are excellent tires worth riding and racing for my needs.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    808
    So the Renagade has more volume, but smaller lugs than the Ikon? If so thats cool for now until i can get my hands on a Ikon 2.35. I have a Surly 3.0 on the front of my Fox 34 and Iam loving it on my Stumpy Fsr with carbon havens, the tire is lighter than the dissent i took off and way bigger running it tubless fun times. Thanks again BB for your input!
    "It Is What It Is" Phil 4:13
    B-Ray Da Beast

  45. #45
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by B-RAY View Post
    So the Renagade has more volume, but smaller lugs than the Ikon? If so thats cool for now until i can get my hands on a Ikon 2.35. I have a Surly 3.0 on the front of my Fox 34 and Iam loving it on my Stumpy Fsr with carbon havens, the tire is lighter than the dissent i took off and way bigger running it tubless fun times. Thanks again BB for your input!
    No problem. Just to clarify.....I didn't say the Renegade 2.3 has more volume than the Ikon 2.35. Casing width for the two are just about the same, but the side lugs on the Ikon make it measure out larger.

    Ikon 2.35 at 24 psi on my Roval carbon rims tubeless:

    58.1 mm casing width
    59.14 mm tread width

    Renegade 2.3 on the same Roval carbon rims tubeless:

    57-58mm casing width (depending on psi and which tire I am measuring front or rear)

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13
    Hi, Bruce and others.

    I'm quite new to MTB, and I'm asking for an advise on tires for my bike. Currently I'm running very light hardtail Ti Motobecane 29er with Kenda Small Blocks 8 2.1 (front+rear). This setup is great for generic XC and I enjoy it very much. But there's also a comparatively low-speed trail (avg speed 11-12 mph) right near my home and every time I go there I feel myself really uncomfortable. I know that my trail skills are still mediocre and that's one part of a problem, but I also see that my current tires don't let me feel confident when I'm on the trail. My front tire washes out every time I'm trying to ride a bit more aggressively. Thus I'm looking for your help regarding tire setup.

    Conditions:
    1. XC is a priority
    2. But I'm ready to trade some of the rolling speed for additional grip needed on a trail (I don't ride slow, technical trails though)
    Trail:
    3. No mud or extremely wet conditions
    4. Mostly dry, hard and loose over hard - pine needles, leaves, roots, a bit of sand and those round pebbles, basically typical forest trail in SE Michigan.
    5. By the way I'm under 160 lbs

    I did a research on the web for a solution in my situation and I came to the same setup that you use on your FS bike:
    Front: Maxxis Ikon 2.35
    Rear: Maxxis Ikon 2.2

    I also think that Ardent 2.4 or Nic 2.35 are overkill for 29er with focus on XC, even aggressive XC. However, I noticed that several times you mentioned that you'd ride 2.35 front AND REAR on your singlespeed or rigid bike. So my question is - why would you go with 2.35 on rear as well for hardtails? What's the idea behind? A bit more cushion?

  47. #47
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Observer View Post
    I did a research on the web for a solution in my situation and I came to the same setup that you use on your FS bike:
    Front: Maxxis Ikon 2.35
    Rear: Maxxis Ikon 2.2

    I also think that Ardent 2.4 or Nic 2.35 are overkill for 29er with focus on XC, even aggressive XC. However, I noticed that several times you mentioned that you'd ride 2.35 front AND REAR on your singlespeed or rigid bike. So my question is - why would you go with 2.35 on rear as well for hardtails? What's the idea behind? A bit more cushion?
    Yes - for more cushion/suspension.

    I wouldn't be so quick to label the Ardent 2.4 and Nobby Nic 2.35 as "overkill" for XC, even aggressive XC" as they are both wonderful - and fun - tires. The Ikon 2.35 is going to give you a lot of the same type of performance at a lighter weight and better rolling resistance.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    930
    As Bruce mentioned, definitely not "overkill" going to larger front tires. I've gone from one extreme (sort of) .... RaRa to a Hans Dampf and the difference in speed over say a 10-minute XC trail segment is insignificant. Sure, you might work a little harder getting it up to speed, but then you will be more prepared as trail conditions change and your confidence/grip/fun will go way up.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    Yes - for more cushion/suspension.

    I wouldn't be so quick to label the Ardent 2.4 and Nobby Nic 2.35 as "overkill" for XC, even aggressive XC" as they are both wonderful - and fun - tires. The Ikon 2.35 is going to give you a lot of the same type of performance at a lighter weight and better rolling resistance.
    I totally agree, Nic and Ardent are fun tires, but for my purpose I'd rather go with lighter weight and better rolling.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfdog93 View Post
    As Bruce mentioned, definitely not "overkill" going to larger front tires. I've gone from one extreme (sort of) .... RaRa to a Hans Dampf and the difference in speed over say a 10-minute XC trail segment is insignificant. Sure, you might work a little harder getting it up to speed, but then you will be more prepared as trail conditions change and your confidence/grip/fun will go way up.
    I agree, but in my case it's not just 10-minute XC trails or trail segments. I often ride more than 40, sometimes even 50 miles on my hardtail - mixed dirt and paved roads and different types of XC trails. Thus I think there'll be noticeable difference between Ardent 2.4 and Ikon even in 2.35

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by Observer View Post
    I agree, but in my case it's not just 10-minute XC trails or trail segments. I often ride more than 40, sometimes even 50 miles on my hardtail - mixed dirt and paved roads and different types of XC trails. Thus I think there'll be noticeable difference between Ardent 2.4 and Ikon even in 2.35
    As you mentioned you are new to mountain biking, I'm sure either tire will work sufficiently and once you have ridden a bunch, it will be time for new tire anyway.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTscoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,328
    Ikon 2.35 rocks, almost enough to where I think it might be grippier than my 2.4" Ardent up front on my trails.

    Casing is almost identical between the two 29er tires. 59mm on the Ikon, 60mm on the Ardent but I imagine the Ikon will stretch out to the full 60 after use.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13
    By the way, I plan to set my front Ikon 2.35 as tubeless, but my rims are only 19mm wide. Can that be a problem?

    UPDATE: 19mm is an inner width (it seems even closer to 18mm), outside is 24mm.
    Last edited by Observer; 09-02-2013 at 12:29 PM.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    366
    It can be a problem if you don't put enough air in your tire. Basically, you will likely have to run it a few psi higher than you would on a wider rim to keep the tire from squirming around when you corner. On a wider rim you could likely go down a few psi until the limiting factor becomes your rim hitting whatever you are riding over.

    So your skinny rim will keep you from getting that last few psi of cush and traction out of the tire, it's not the end of the world, but it kind of defeats the purpose of getting such a big tire.

    For example, I had 22mm wide rims(outside width) and those were the only ones I had tires squirm on, I had to keep about 24psi in the front when I would have liked to have run about 21psi, so it wasn't a huge deal for me.

    Of course, I could be wrong if you go crazy fast downhill and just plow into stuff, then you are probably already running high enough psi that the tire won't squirm.



    Quote Originally Posted by Observer View Post
    By the way, I plan to set my front Ikon 2.35 as tubeless, but my rims are only 19mm wide. Can that be a problem?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    61
    Has anyone found a place that has the 29x2.35 non EXO. Don't really need the extra protection or weight for a front tire.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonL View Post
    Has anyone found a place that has the 29x2.35 non EXO. Don't really need the extra protection or weight for a front tire.
    Subscribed. Im looking for the same tire and can't seem to find it anywhere!

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4 Beta

  57. #57
    there's no bread
    Reputation: byrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    218
    You can buy them directly from Maxxis.

    https://www.shopmaxxis.com/b2c/

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by byrot View Post
    You can buy them directly from Maxxis.

    https://www.shopmaxxis.com/b2c/
    That's the problem. $77 for a tire that normally sells for 50-55 bucks. No thanks

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilarider View Post
    It can be a problem if you don't put enough air in your tire.

    ... CUT...
    Ohh, sorry for the confusion. My rims have 19mm inner width, outside is around 25mm.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Observer View Post
    Ohh, sorry for the confusion. My rims have 19mm inner width, outside is around 25mm.

    No, I'M sorry for the confusion. I knew you meant inside width, I didn't remember the inside width of my old rims so I put outside width just to show they were narrow. They were the first American Classic 29er rims, which I think were just their beefier road rims.

    19mm inside width will be OK, I think, but it depends on your weight, terrain, style, etc. My only point is your rim may require a few extra psi than a wider rim.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13
    Just for everybody to know:

    I successfully converted my Vuelta Team Superlight rims with 19mm inner width and 24mm outer width to tubeless using Ikon 2.35 for my front and Ikon 2.2 on a rear.


    The method that worked for me is gorilla tape + stans rim strip (29er cross-country).


    After really long analysis I decided not to go with split tube method because my rims are kinda tubeless-friendly (although not tubeless-ready) and I also used tubeless-ready Ikon with EXO sidewalls for additional support.

    Initially I tried to go with gorilla tape only + stans valves. I removed original red rim liner and used 2 layers of gorilla tape to seal the rim. Then I made a hole for the valve - inserted the valve, put a tire on and was able to get a really good seal using air compressor with first shot. I have to say that Ikon bead worked great - my tire was at 40 psi and didn't loose any air for 2 days without any sealant!

    However, when I tried to deflate the tire - I was not able to pump it back. That was a moment when I realized what "bead lock" means. Unfortunately my rims (Vuelta) are not tubeless-ready and they do not have a "bead-shelf" - thus my Ikon tire was sitting too loose inside a rim and there's no chance for bead to stay put if pressure goes down.

    That forced me to use a stans rim strip that works as a pseudo-bead-shelf and allows to get a tight lock on a bead. That's actually the main purpose of the rim strip, not air isolation.

    So, I removed the valve, cleaned the rim again, put rim strip on (very easy thing to do), added just a bit of soap water - and pop-pop, my tire was sealed nicely (with air compressor of course). Again, Ikon worked great - no air leaks except one little bubble near the valve (no sealant yet, remember). But this time, I was able to pump my tire again using my floor-pump. I deflated-inflated the tire several times just to make sure that I can do that with floor pump easily.

    Then I removed the valve core, added ~80ml of stans sealant (using stans sealant injector) and pumped it up again with my floor pump. Not a single spill of sealant on my garage floor - nice and clean work.

    In several seconds the leak near the valve was sealed and it stays this way up till now.

    As a part of testing procedure I rode ~60 miles on dirt roads with 40 psi in both tires. Then ~100 miles on dirt roads with 20 psi front and rear (I'm under 160lbs). Then ~25 miles of trail riding. Everything looks great so far.

    Expenses:
    1. Gorilla tape - $2.7
    2. Rim strips - 2x$20.5
    3. Stans sealant injector - $9
    4. Stans 32oz - $24

    ~$77 in total.

    Can be $40 less if you don't need rim strips and your rims have bead shelves.


    Have a nice ride, guys.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vmaxx4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonL View Post
    That's the problem. $77 for a tire that normally sells for 50-55 bucks. No thanks
    Arts Cycle. Use the Promo code "SAVE15" and they come in at $59.50.

    Maxxis Ikon 29er Tire
    2010 Intense Spider 2
    2010 Ibis Tranny SS
    2012 Salsa Mukluk 2
    2013 Salsa Spearfish 1
    2013 Trek Domane 5.2
    2014 Hakkalugi

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Observer View Post
    Hi, Bruce and others.

    I'm quite new to MTB, and I'm asking for an advise on tires for my bike. Currently I'm running very light hardtail Ti Motobecane 29er with Kenda Small Blocks 8 2.1 (front+rear). This setup is great for generic XC and I enjoy it very much. But there's also a comparatively low-speed trail (avg speed 11-12 mph) right near my home and every time I go there I feel myself really uncomfortable. I know that my trail skills are still mediocre and that's one part of a problem, but I also see that my current tires don't let me feel confident when I'm on the trail. My front tire washes out every time I'm trying to ride a bit more aggressively. Thus I'm looking for your help regarding tire setup.

    Conditions:
    1. XC is a priority
    2. But I'm ready to trade some of the rolling speed for additional grip needed on a trail (I don't ride slow, technical trails though)
    Trail:
    3. No mud or extremely wet conditions
    4. Mostly dry, hard and loose over hard - pine needles, leaves, roots, a bit of sand and those round pebbles, basically typical forest trail in SE Michigan.
    5. By the way I'm under 160 lbs

    I did a research on the web for a solution in my situation and I came to the same setup that you use on your FS bike:
    Front: Maxxis Ikon 2.35
    Rear: Maxxis Ikon 2.2

    I also think that Ardent 2.4 or Nic 2.35 are overkill for 29er with focus on XC, even aggressive XC. However, I noticed that several times you mentioned that you'd ride 2.35 front AND REAR on your singlespeed or rigid bike. So my question is - why would you go with 2.35 on rear as well for hardtails? What's the idea behind? A bit more cushion?
    What pressure are you running?
    Are you running tubeless?

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by vmaxx4 View Post
    Arts Cycle. Use the Promo code "SAVE15" and they come in at $59.50.

    Maxxis Ikon 29er Tire
    He's looking for the 3C (non Exo) tire, and they don't seem to have it there.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtdan View Post
    What pressure are you running?
    Are you running tubeless?
    I'm running with 20-22 front and 26-28 rear. Running front as a tubeless now, rear still to be converted (next week hopefully).

    Why?

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ccornacc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    308
    Does anyone have any comparison on a RaRa 2.35 vs Ikon 2.35 on the front?

  67. #67
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ccornacc View Post
    Does anyone have any comparison on a RaRa 2.35 vs Ikon 2.35 on the front?
    Sure. I've got both - what do you want compared?

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ccornacc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    308
    Sorry, should have clarified. How is the front cornering grip on the Ikon compared to the RaRa. I have never felt as comfortable on the RaRa, so I typically ride the ardent 2.4 on the front now. They seem to break loose much easier on the trail surfaces here in CO.

    The Ikon seems intriguing if it grips better than the RaRa and rolls faster than the Ardent.

    Let me know what you think.

    Thanks!

  69. #69
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ccornacc View Post
    Sorry, should have clarified. How is the front cornering grip on the Ikon compared to the RaRa. I have never felt as comfortable on the RaRa, so I typically ride the ardent 2.4 on the front now. They seem to break loose much easier on the trail surfaces here in CO.

    The Ikon seems intriguing if it grips better than the RaRa and rolls faster than the Ardent.

    Let me know what you think.

    Thanks!
    The big Ikon is much more aggressive tire than the Racing Ralph - for sure. And yes, it rolls much faster than the Ardent. I guess the best description for your purposes is that the Ikon 2.35 would be smack dab in the middle between the big Ralph and the big Ardent in terms of overall performance. Smoother rolling (rolling resistantance wise) due to the short center knobs of the Ikon, but taller side lugs for very aggressive cornering. At least, I find it very aggressive for XC purposes. So much so, that it is overkill for most of my riding.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ccornacc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    308
    Thanks Bruce! Just ordered one!

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    116
    I have been watching this thread for some time and also decided to give the Ikon 2.35's a try. I have most recently been running Racing Ralph 2.35's F&R (non-snake-skin) and had a sidewall tear and was looking for something else. I ride mostly cross-country type trails.
    I mounted up the Ikons easily to Nox rims tubeless, first try. No weeping or sealing issues with the standard, non-exo version.

    On the trails, these tires are the best I have found. Almost as fast as the Ra - Ra, but way more traction. Ralphs required much more aggressive leaning into corners than the Ikons.
    I can also compare them to Nobby Nics; and I found almost as much cornering and climbing traction as 2.35 Nics. - except in muddy conditions. Also Ikons felt faster and lighter with better acceleration and maneuverability.

    I am ~195 lbs geared up and am running 25psi rear and 23psi front. no squirm, great performance.

    I love a large volume tire and am very pleased with Ikon 2.35's.
    what doesn't kill you makes you stronger

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Where did you purchase the 2.35 non-exo's? The only place I can find them is the maxxis online store. And also what is the inner width of your rims?

    Anyone have experience running these on stans crest or arch ex??

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    971
    I just put one on the front, for a XC tire light,fast rolling , good turn in, whats not to like. Mine re the EXO version and just under 700g. Very impressed so far.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by 8iking VIIking View Post
    Where did you purchase the 2.35 non-exo's? The only place I can find them is the maxxis online store. And also what is the inner width of your rims?

    Anyone have experience running these on stans crest or arch ex??
    I just got mine 3C (Non EXO) from Maxxis directly. Only place I could find them. Had some really pleasant conversations with the folks there at Maxxis as well. So easy going and helpful. Made me want to get a job there.

    I have Crests and will be mounting them up today, tubeless. I'll report back, but I am figuring I am going to be pleased with these.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by 8iking VIIking View Post
    Where did you purchase the 2.35 non-exo's? The only place I can find them is the maxxis online store.
    I'm only seeing them here: Maxxis Ikon 29"

    BTW, the manufacturer's part number is TB96729000. Search for this number in the future; additional distributors may pick them up.


    And I'm glad you guys are digging the tire. I think I'm most proud of the Ikon.
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by jochribs View Post
    I just got mine 3C (Non EXO) from Maxxis directly. Only place I could find them. Had some really pleasant conversations with the folks there at Maxxis as well. So easy going and helpful. Made me want to get a job there.

    I have Crests and will be mounting them up today, tubeless. I'll report back, but I am figuring I am going to be pleased with these.
    Looking forward to a report! Thanks!

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beer_coffee_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    757
    I ride a Honzo with a 2.4 Ardent EXO/2.35 Ikon EXO combo. The grip up front is great from the Ardent. The Ikon is awesome though. It is nearly the same size of the Ardent, nice and cushy, and has just enough traction through the corners where I can choose when I want it to break away. Also it is fast on hard pack and similar surfaces. These are set up tubeless with the Ardent on an i23 at 20-22 lbs and the Ikon on a Flow at 24-28 lbs. I weigh around 185 geared and my bike is less 29 lbs.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by 8iking VIIking View Post
    Where did you purchase the 2.35 non-exo's? The only place I can find them is the maxxis online store. And also what is the inner width of your rims?

    Anyone have experience running these on stans crest or arch ex??
    I got mine at the Maxis online store. Couldn't find non-exo anywhere else.
    Inner width is 24mm on the Nox rims.
    I have found that narrower rims require a little more tire pressure to support the sidewalls.
    what doesn't kill you makes you stronger

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

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by Burnerd View Post
    I got mine at the Maxis online store. Couldn't find non-exo anywhere else.
    Inner width is 24mm on the Nox rims.
    I have found that narrower rims require a little more tire pressure to support the sidewalls.
    That's what I was afraid of....im running arch ex's and love my low pressures :thumbup:

    I might hold out for the ardent race, which by all accounts sounds like a sweet tire, but its not available in the US yet

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: client_9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    833
    Another endorsement for the 2.35 IKON rear / 2.4 Ardent front.
    I'm 215 lbs w/ gear and riding rocks and roots. I went with the EXO for both.
    Set up tubeless on Flow rims. No problems. Love the big volume.


  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by 8iking VIIking View Post
    Looking forward to a report! Thanks!
    No ride report as of yet except for a quick couple miles on the road. A bit heavier than the Renegade 2.3's I was running but feel smooth too. I have tubes in now, because the tape on my front wheel gave up the ghost when I was seating the tire. Probably retape tonight.

    One thing that I noticed when mounting the tires was that the one that I put on my front wheel felt a lot more loose fitting than the one that I put on the rear wheel. Was easy to get on the rim (Crest), whereas the rear was more of the sort of fight that I am used to. I did the front first, and thought, "man, this is a bit looser than I would have expected", and figured it just to be the way the tires fit, but the rear was much tighter. I'm a little concerned about the possibility of burping. I guess I'll see. Being that the two tires fit differently, I wonder of there's a problem with the looser one?

    Does anyone else have any feedback about the fit of the Ikon on Crest's?
    Last edited by jochribs; 11-26-2013 at 07:48 AM. Reason: clarification

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by jochribs View Post
    No ride report as of yet except for a quick couple miles on the road. A bit heavier than the Renegade 2.3's I was running but feel smooth too. I have tubes in now, because the tape on my front wheel gave up the ghost when I was seating the tire. Probably retape tonight.

    One thing that I noticed when mounting the tires was that the one that I put on my front wheel felt a lot more loose fitting than the one that I put on the rear wheel. Was easy to get on the rim (Crest), whereas the rear was more of the sort of fight that I am used to. I did the front first, and thought, "man, this is a bit looser than I would have expected", and figured it just to be the way the tires fit, but the rear was much tighter. I'm a little concerned about the possibility of burping. I guess I'll see. Being that the two tires fit differently, I wonder of there's a problem with the looser one?

    Does anyone else have any feedback about the fit of the Ikon on Crest's?
    FWIW I've heard from a lot of others having good success with 2.2's on crests, but haven't heard much about the 2.35s

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    842
    which one do you recommended for rear tire the ikon 2.35 or the 2.2 version? My current setup are ardent 2.25 front/rear if this this setup very slow. Anyway I ride endure/ all mountain trails in my 29er.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by rave81 View Post
    which one do you recommended for rear tire the ikon 2.35 or the 2.2 version? My current setup are ardent 2.25 front/rear if this this setup very slow. Anyway I ride endure/ all mountain trails in my 29er.
    2.35 for more cush and traction, 2.2 if weight is a big concern. For all mountain riding a lot of people love the ardent 2.4 front/ikon 2.35 rear

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    808
    I have a knard 3.0 on the front of my stumpjumper fsr with a Ikon 2.35 on the rear. Iam loving both of the tires, very fast and capable combo!
    "It Is What It Is" Phil 4:13
    B-Ray Da Beast

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by 8iking VIIking View Post
    2.35 for more cush and traction, 2.2 if weight is a big concern. For all mountain riding a lot of people love the ardent 2.4 front/ikon 2.35 rear
    Will it affect the speed since 2.35 is wider than 2.2?

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,509
    I've gotten a couple days on the 2.35's on Crests and I really like the tire so far. I am running about 18psi front and 19psi rear, tubeless, and they are rolling fast and feeling supple.

    They sealed up unbelievably easy. I have not had such an easy time except for Specialized tires. Aired up with a floor pump, and held pressure with no loss for a few hours while I was doing other work on the bike, and hadn't put the sealant in yet. Not so much as a hiccup on the trail.

    Yesterday was a mix of rocks, frozen dirt, and miserable mud. They did well in all, except for the mud. They seemed to pack up, and not shed so well. This isn't really a negative as far as I'm concerned because I don't like to ride in mud, and this mud was super sticky, tacky, just friggin nasty stuff to top it off. I think most tires would have loaded up pretty good in this situation...that being said, my wife's Fasttraks didn't fill up nearly as bad...

    Today was hardpack with shale, and some wet areas that had some thin mud (nothing like the peanut butter from the day before). Tires worked great. Held in fast turns, climbed great, never so much as washed out in the front (and they were getting pushed) or spun in the rear.

    I definitely like these tires. I am running the Non-Exo ones, and the rocks from yesterday, and the sharp shale from today didn't even leave a mark.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 8iking VIIking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Maxxis Ikon 2.35

    Quote Originally Posted by jochribs View Post
    I've gotten a couple days on the 2.35's on Crests and I really like the tire so far. I am running about 18psi front and 19psi rear, tubeless, and they are rolling fast and feeling supple.

    They sealed up unbelievably easy. I have not had such an easy time except for Specialized tires. Aired up with a floor pump, and held pressure with no loss for a few hours while I was doing other work on the bike, and hadn't put the sealant in yet. Not so much as a hiccup on the trail.

    Yesterday was a mix of rocks, frozen dirt, and miserable mud. They did well in all, except for the mud. They seemed to pack up, and not shed so well. This isn't really a negative as far as I'm concerned because I don't like to ride in mud, and this mud was super sticky, tacky, just friggin nasty stuff to top it off. I think most tires would have loaded up pretty good in this situation...that being said, my wife's Fasttraks didn't fill up nearly as bad...

    Today was hardpack with shale, and some wet areas that had some thin mud (nothing like the peanut butter from the day before). Tires worked great. Held in fast turns, climbed great, never so much as washed out in the front (and they were getting pushed) or spun in the rear.

    I definitely like these tires. I am running the Non-Exo ones, and the rocks from yesterday, and the sharp shale from today didn't even leave a mark.
    Thanks for the write up! Ikon 2.35 front/2.2 rear it is for me :thumbup:

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    842
    I just replaced my ardent rear tire to ikon 2.2, while I maintain ardent 2.25 in front. It is big improvement it rolls faster and requires my less effort to pedal. . Anyway both front & rear are Exo version and setup as tubeless. .

    i noticed less braking power on the rear tire ikon 2.2 Exo and slight wably during high speed descend compare to my ardet Exo 2.25. Is this normal characteristic of ikon 2.2?
    Last edited by rave81; 12-01-2013 at 11:36 PM.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,509
    When you say less braking power in the rear, what are you referring to? Like when you lock up the brakes and throw the rear into a skid, it doesn't slow the bike as fast?

    I didn't notice any loss of braking power at all. But I'm not skidding, and the power is coming from the front.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Ardent's knobs stick out farther and should naturally brake better than the Ikon.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    211
    Crosspost from wheel & tire forum:

    Maxxis Ikon 29 x 2.35 EXO, non-tubeless ready: 684 g

    Much less than the advertised 760 g :thumbup:. Been running one on the front since this summer and like it very well - love the width and volume and predictable traction as it is leaned over.

    Just put one on the rear, too, replacing a 29 x 2.2 EXO to add some cush to my HT. Only have a couple rides in, but so far the 2.35 has taken the edge off the trail chatter nicely. Will have a better idea after a few longer rides, but the improved comfort seems worth the modest weight increase.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,509
    That's pretty much what my 2.35 3C non-EXO tires weighed in at. 689 and 690.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    211
    I should add that I have both f&r set up tubeless. Front on a Bontrager Duster with TLR rim strip; rear on a Flow. Set up was pretty easy.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    Hey Guys,
    I have 2 new 2.35 29ers for sale 50% retail

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ccornacc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    308
    Are they the EXO version?

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    They are 3C maxx speed, lightest in the 2.35 range

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,044
    I have to say that the 2.4 EXO ardent ft 29 and the 2.35 Ikon EXO rear 29 is a really good combo .

    The 2.35 rear Ikon rolls so much better that the 2.3 ardent rear , the traction is not quite what the ardent was but overall its a much smoother faster tire !

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    Did you try the Maxxis eStore?

    Obviously, 2 different tires. The Renegade 2.3 is a big volume, very rounded profile XC tire that is light and quick, yet has plenty of traction for XC racing and riding. It has more minimal tread - especially the side lugs. The Ikon 2.35 is much more aggressive XC to even trail tire that is smack dab between an Ardent 2.4 and the Ikon 2.2. In terms of up front for sure footed handling, the Ikon tops the Renegade for cornering bite and braking bite. I've only run it up front as it is too aggressive for my needs in the rear. Although I would like to have it front and rear on my Karate Monkey singlespeed. The Renegade 2.3 is the largest volume minimal tread tire that I am aware of - so the contact patch and big volume provide the majority of the traction.

    Both are excellent tires worth riding and racing for my needs.
    Wondering if Bruce or others could say if the 2.35 Ikons and 2.3 Renegades compare volume & rolling resistance to a WTB 2.4 Mutano Raptor? I am running the 26" size. I'm always looking for the most possible volume for mixed & soft-sand conditions here. (I measure 3.0" clearance for both pairs of stays on my '12 Blur XC

    Also going to try at least a Blunt 35 rim next, even a Derby 26" if I can fund it, so I like the idea of tire with less pronounced side lugs that will be less-exaggerated by the 'tread-squaring' effect of very wide rims... have others experimented with using more rounded-tread profile tires to compensate for tire profile change on the wide rims?? Related thoughts/experience? TIA, and for all the great info here.

  100. #100
    StoneCutter
    Reputation: Orl1exm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    39
    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.

Page 1 of 5 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: 196

Posting Permissions

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