Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 198
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Look at the Maxxis website for some new tires listed in 2013 (click on "Specification" to see the tables with different versions):

    Minion DHF 29x2,5":
    Minion DHF

    Highroller II 29x2,3":
    High Roller II

    Ikon now in 29x2,35":
    Ikon

    Ardent 29x2,25" got an EXO carcass now:
    Ardent

    Minion DHR II in 29x2,3":
    Minion DHR II
    Last edited by DerBergschreck; 01-26-2013 at 03:22 AM.

  2. #2
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by DerBergschreck View Post

    Ikon now in 29x2,35":
    Ikon
    Now that it is official and up on the Maxxis website, I hope it is okay to talk about it in public. Finally!!!!

    The Ikon 2.35 is a great addition to the Ikon line. I've been testing one of the 2.35 prototypes all fall and winter on my JET 9 as a front tire with one of my older Ikon 2.2's in the rear. I really can't say enough good things about the 2.35 version.

    Lugs are a little taller than previous Ikons giving this 2.35 some very nice bite, yet seemingly no loss in speed. The taller side knobs are confidence inspiring in the corners and make this a front tire highly worthy of recommending (I haven't tried it in the rear yet). I've taken it on gravel, pavement, dirt, snow, ice, sand, leaves, mud, frozen ground, singletrack, doubletrack, and even out on a frozen lake. It's a keeper for sure and have been chomping at the bit to talk about it - it's that good of a tire. For my riding and terrain, it's an ideal front XC tire and I would pair it with a 2.25 or 2.2 XC tire in the rear.

    Maxxis pretty much hit the ball out of the park for those of us who like a little more volume on our 29"ers. A big aggressive Ikon!!!

    The one pictured is the lighter eXC/3C sub 700g 2.35 tire (been running it tubeless of course).

    <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_z.jpg" width="480" height="640" alt="IkonFrontTestToo"></a>

    <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_z.jpg" width="626" height="640" alt="IkonFrontTest"></a>

  3. #3
    agu
    agu is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: agu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,076
    That's great news. How does,it compare, volume wise, to an Ardent 2.4 or a RaRa 2.35 or 2.4?

  4. #4
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by agu View Post
    That's great news. How does,it compare, volume wise, to an Ardent 2.4 or a RaRa 2.35 or 2.4?
    Maxxis uses the standard of measuring for their mountain bike tires based on 60 psi and using a tube. If you go back to other threads when Maxxis tires were released or being discussed with regard to the sizing and volume, the company has been very up front about that with all of us. Kudos to former Maxxis employee and MTBR member Bryan Holwell for engaging in prior discussions such as this one.

    Volume wise for this new XC Ikon 2.35....?

    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.

    So volume wise, it trumps the 2.2 Ikon in a very welcomed way.

    Secondly, remember that mine is a prototype. What I like about this one compared to the 2.2 Ikon is that the side lugs stick out wider than the casing width. It is the reverse on my Ikon 2.2 with the casing width being a mm or two wider than the side lugs. I have found those new taller side lugs on the Ikon 2.35 to engage quicker in corners than my Nobby Nics 2.25 or 2.35 (which casing width is wider than the lugs on the Nics). The new Ikon is a pretty nice, confidence inspiring engagement of those lugs on the corners. I can't say that about the 2.2 Ikon, but maybe the lug height is scheduled to be taller like the new 2.35's - I don't know.

    The internal rim width measurement of my Roval carbon rim, is not as wide as a NoTubes Flow, but more like the Crest. My measurements of the Ardent 2.4 and Racing Ralph 2.4 are from wider rims than the Roval carbon. My guess is I would gain about 1mm in width on my Flows if I moved the tire over there based on what other tires do.

    Casing width is 57.28mm (that's 2.2551181" for the non-metric Americanos)
    Tread width is a nice 58.32mm (that's 2.296063" for the same crowd)

    My Nobby Nic 2.35 currently mounted up on a similar carbon rim (the light bicycle AM wide rim) is 1mm wider in the casing than the Ikon 2.35. The Ralph 2.4 currently mounted on my Flow rim is 2mm wider at the casing and the tread width than the 2.35 Ikon. I don't have an Ardent 2.4 mounted up on anything at the moment, but I'm sure if you dug around in previous threads you could find my measurements on that tire.

    The Ikon 2.35 tire has been mounted and ridden for 3 months, and my psi is 22 for these measurements. The tread width on mine at that psi, on my rim certainly would satisfy me for a 2.3" tire. Perhaps, blowing it up to 60 psi using a tube does measure out at the 2.35 - but no way I'm going to blow mine up that high to measure to see if it matches the Maxxis standard of sizing.

    Whatever one wants to call the size - it is a very welcome addition to the Ikon line. Taller knobs, more volume, more aggressive all adds up to an excellent front XC racing tire for my needs.

    I'm sure others will chime in who have some saddle time on this tire. I also don't know when it will actually be shipping, but based on prior Maxxis releases - it's probably down the road a bit.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BikerJen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    351
    Wish they made their Ignitors with a thicker tread/wall - I had them last year only to be undone both tubeless and with tubes by rocks and thorns. Disappointed especially when you pay $$ for them!! Are these models similar?
    Enjoying the trails one pedal stroke at a time...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by BikerJen View Post
    Wish they made their Ignitors with a thicker tread/wall - I had them last year only to be undone both tubeless and with tubes by rocks and thorns. Disappointed especially when you pay $$ for them!! Are these models similar?
    But there is a Ignitor Version with EXO protection.
    I never understood what the Ignitor is good for. An Ardent should make better job.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    @ BruceBrown

    Of course you know 29ers especially XC ht with FD are tight back there.

    Let's suppose the bike can clear RaRa 2.25 and has even more room with Ardent 2.25 which has a little less volume but doesn't feel like that. I find ardent better than RaRa in every way for local terrain. (and RaRa couldn't last even few months here, much better luck with maxxis)

    Knowing that 2.30-2.35 rear isn't optimal for XC ...

    Would be ikon 2.35 fit back there? Is it higher than RaRa 2.25 or Ardent 2.25?

    And , if you know , what about High roller 2 2.30 height or why not minion DHR II 2.30 height?


    Thx very much for your time.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean_29 View Post
    Knowing that 2.30-2.35 rear isn't optimal for XC ...
    Why that? In 1990 every tire wider than 1,9" wasn't optimal for XC

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skiahh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,588
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post

    Volume wise for this new XC Ikon 2.35....?

    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.

    So volume wise, it trumps the 2.2 Ikon in a very welcomed way.

    Casing width is 57.28mm (that's 2.2551181" for the non-metric Americanos)
    Tread width is a nice 58.32mm (that's 2.296063" for the same crowd)
    I'm confused. If the casing is wider and the tread is wider by that much, how do they get 2.35 out of it? According to your measurements, wouldn't the tire be either 2.7 (2.2 + 5 tread width) or 2.3 (tread width of 2.296063)?

    What size are your rims; internal width, that is?

    Quote Originally Posted by BikerJen View Post
    Wish they made their Ignitors with a thicker tread/wall - I had them last year only to be undone both tubeless and with tubes by rocks and thorns. Disappointed especially when you pay $$ for them!! Are these models similar?
    Strange. I've been running Ignitors for about 3 years now without issue. The last year has been tubeless and other one too low pressure roll-off, not a single issue riding on the CO Front range with some riding in Fruita and Moab. And I don't have the EXO versions, either.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Thanks for the links OP!
    konahonzo

  11. #11
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean_29 View Post
    @ BruceBrown

    Of course you know 29ers especially XC ht with FD are tight back there.

    Let's suppose the bike can clear RaRa 2.25 and has even more room with Ardent 2.25 which has a little less volume but doesn't feel like that. I find ardent better than RaRa in every way for local terrain. (and RaRa couldn't last even few months here, much better luck with maxxis)

    Knowing that 2.30-2.35 rear isn't optimal for XC ...

    Would be ikon 2.35 fit back there? Is it higher than RaRa 2.25 or Ardent 2.25?

    And , if you know , what about High roller 2 2.30 height or why not minion DHR II 2.30 height?


    Thx very much for your time.

    What's the distance between your chainstays where the outer knobs are on the Racing Ralph 2.25?

    Racing Ralph 2.4 on a Flow fits fine on the rear of my new Karate Monkey which is a HT. Some of the older generation HT's were not built to take such a wide tire. So Ardent 2.4's, Ralph 2.4's, Nic 2.35's, etc... may not fit.

    At least on the Roval Trail SL rim with the 21mm internal width measurement, the Ikon 2.35 would probably fit fine. But it all has to do with your rim, your bike's chainstay width, the lateral rigidity of your frame and wheel, etc... . I haven't tried the Ikon - as I said in my original post, on a rear rim as of yet. It's been mounted on the front of my JET 9 since the day I got it for testing.

    Maybe somebody else has tested one of them in the rear of a bike and will post up their findings. I will probably give it a go in the rear on some rim and bike once the weather gets out of the "garage is -2 to -4 every morning" phase and I can feel my hands without gloves on....
    Last edited by BruceBrown; 01-26-2013 at 03:43 PM.

  12. #12
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by skiahh View Post
    I'm confused. If the casing is wider and the tread is wider by that much, how do they get 2.35 out of it? According to your measurements, wouldn't the tire be either 2.7 (2.2 + 5 tread width) or 2.3 (tread width of 2.296063)?
    I'm confused too, in terms of where you came up with a 2.7". Even though Maxxis calls the Ikon 2.2" a 2.2" - mine ain't that. The one I measured on the rear of my Roval is more like a glorified 2.1" (a 2.16 to be exact).

    Or maybe the confusion is that we're lost in a millimeter vs. inch conversion here. You can't add the extra mm's to the tire size label. Especially considering Maxxis - as I stated in my original post - uses the standard of 60 psi with a tube to label their sizing. Again - maybe if I put a tube in my Ikon 2.2" and aired up to 60 psi I would get a full 56mm width, or if I mounted them up on my Flows. But on the Roval rim they measure a bit less tubeless at my psi in the low to mid 20's.

    Rather - you have to add the additional mm width of the 2.35 to the actual caliper measurement of the Ikon 2.2 tire I was referencing on the rear of my bike.

    My quote...

    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.

    In that quote, I was saying the casing width of the Ikon 2.35" is 2.5mm wider than the 2.2" Ikon (which is just a hair under 55mm on the same rim) and the tread width of the 2.35" Ikon is 5mm wider than the tiny tread width of my 2.2" Ikon (which is 53mm and change) - all mounted on the same exact carbon Specialized Roval rims.

    Quote Originally Posted by skiahh View Post
    What size are your rims; internal width, that is?
    They have a skinnier internal rim width than my Flows....

    Model: Specialized Roval Control Trail SL 29er
    Weight: 1530 grams
    Rim: Carbon fiber with 28 mm external and 21 mm internal rim width

    Hopefully that removes the confusion. If not, let me know and I'll have another crack at it.

    BB

  13. #13
    agu
    agu is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: agu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,076
    @bruce brown thanks for the very helpful info. It looks like they tweaked the Ikon's design for the better - rather than just scaling everything up.

    Good thread too, DBS. Hope more testers chime in too

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skiahh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,588
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    I'm confused too, in terms of where you came up with a 2.7". Even though Maxxis calls the Ikon 2.2" a 2.2" - mine ain't that. The one I measured on the rear of my Roval is more like a glorified 2.1" (a 2.16 to be exact).

    Or maybe the confusion is that we're lost in a millimeter vs. inch conversion here. You can't add the extra mm's to the tire size label. Especially considering Maxxis - as I stated in my original post - uses the standard of 60 psi with a tube to label their sizing. Again - maybe if I put a tube in my Ikon 2.2" and aired up to 60 psi I would get a full 56mm width, or if I mounted them up on my Flows. But on the Roval rim they measure a bit less tubeless at my psi in the low to mid 20's.

    Rather - you have to add the additional mm width of the 2.35 to the actual caliper measurement of the Ikon 2.2 tire I was referencing on the rear of my bike.

    My quote...

    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.

    In that quote, I was saying the casing width of the Ikon 2.35" is 2.5mm wider than the 2.2" Ikon (which is just a hair under 55mm on the same rim) and the tread width of the 2.35" Ikon is 5mm wider than the tiny tread width of my 2.2" Ikon (which is 53mm and change) - all mounted on the same exact carbon Specialized Roval rims.



    They have a skinnier internal rim width than my Flows....

    Model: Specialized Roval Control Trail SL 29er
    Weight: 1530 grams
    Rim: Carbon fiber with 28 mm external and 21 mm internal rim width

    Hopefully that removes the confusion. If not, let me know and I'll have another crack at it.

    BB
    Ah, crap. Math in public is always a dangerous undertaking. Yes, I mixed inches and millimeters.

    I wonder how those might fit on my ENVEs with their 18mm width. Their site says the wheels can handle up to 2.4" tires. I've been thinking of upgrading my 2.1 Ignitors and had decided on the Specialized Ground Control 2.3s, but now I've got to re-consider.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ocean_29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    What's the distance between your chainstays where the outer knobs are on the Racing Ralph 2.25?

    Racing Ralph 2.4 on a Flow fits fine on the rear of my new Karate Monkey which is a HT. Some of the older generation HT's were not built to take such a wide tire. So Ardent 2.4's, Ralph 2.4's, Nic 2.35's, etc... may not fit.

    At least on the Roval Trail SL rim with the 21mm internal width measurement, the Ikon 2.35 would probably fit fine. But it all has to do with your rim, your bike's chainstay width, the lateral rigidity of your frame and wheel, etc... . I haven't tried the Ikon - as I said in my original post, on a rear rim as of yet. It's been mounted on the front of my JET 9 since the day I got it for testing.

    Maybe somebody else has tested one of them in the rear of a bike and will post up their findings. I will probably give it a go in the rear on some rim and bike once the weather gets out of the "garage is -2 to -4 every morning" phase and I can feel my hands without gloves on....
    hi again , its not about the room between chainstays and the outer knobs of the tire. The thing is about the space between the tire and FD.

    Your KM ht is not a typical XC race bike, its a steel general purpose bike (which i like a lot btw ) with bend on seatube. Another example is Yelli which is also Ht and has plenty of clearance for big tires but its not XC either.

    Most XC race bikes and contemporary ones(Santa cruz, Canyon, Trek, Cube, Giant, etc...) with ~440mm - + 5 CS
    and ~73 + - 1 STA with FD and not a big bend on seatube have room for up to 2.2 to lets say 2.35 tires and its depending

    the tire company sizing eg 2.25 from Schwalbe is not the same with 2.25 from panaracer etc.

    how much mud clearance you want.

    What kind of FD the bike has, if it has already direct mount FD and ~435 CS you cant do more if you want to increase clearance. On others you can change the FD from bottom swing to down swing to get some space etc.

    the rim, chain stays design etc


    thats why I asked about the height of new tires (ikon 2.35 ,Highroller 2 2.30, minion 2.3)

    how tall are comparing to famous Ardent 2.25 or a typical rear 2.25 schwalbe RaRa tire the critical point for me and others, apart from the space outer knobs - chainstays or outer knobs - seatsays, is

    the space between tire - FD, personally I have a lot of space on seatstays/chainstays - tire
    but not on tire - FD.
    Last edited by ocean_29; 01-27-2013 at 04:32 AM.

  16. #16
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean_29 View Post
    hi again , its not about the room between chainstays and the outer knobs of the tire. The thing is about the space between the tire and FD.

    Your KM ht is not a typical XC race bike, its a steel general purpose bike (which i like a lot btw ) with bend on seatube. Another example is Yelli which is also Ht and has plenty of clearance for big tires but its not XC either.

    Most XC race bikes and contemporary ones(Santa cruz, Canyon, Trek, Cube, Giant, etc...) with ~440mm - + 5 CS
    and ~73 + - 1 STA with FD and not a big bend on seatube have room for up to 2.2 to lets say 2.35 tires and its depending

    the tire company sizing eg 2.25 from Schwalbe is not the same with 2.25 from panaracer etc.

    how much mud clearance you want.

    What kind of FD the bike has, if it has already direct mount FD and ~435 CS you cant do more if you want to increase clearance. On others you can change the FD from bottom swing to down swing to get some space etc.

    the rim, chain stays design etc


    thats why I asked about the height of new tires (ikon 2.35 ,Highroller 2 2.30, minion 2.3)

    how tall are comparing to famous Ardent 2.25 or a typical rear 2.25 schwalbe RaRa tire the critical point for me and others, apart from the space outer knobs - chainstays or outer knobs - seatsays, is

    the space between tire - FD, personally I have a lot of space on seatstays/chainstays - tire
    but not on tire - FD.
    I can fit an Ardent 2.4 in the rear of the Dos Niner and it currently has a Nobby Nic 2.25 in the rear of it. Based on the measurements of those compared to the Ikon, I'm pretty sure it would fit just fine.

    If I had the Ikon 2.35 on a rear rim, I could also put it on the rear of my wife's Air 9 which is a typical XC race bike (as is my Dos).

    But alas - it's mounted on a front rim at the moment.

  17. #17
    Rep'n the 905
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    282
    All these tires, how does one choose!! Everytime I think I made up my mind.

    Thanks to the OP, more research to be done now.

  18. #18
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    I've been running 2.55 Weirwolfs on my Air9 w/ Crest rims and now that they're about done, I'm looking for something to replace them as my non-summer tires.

    The 2.35 Ikon's look like a more comparable replacement than the 2.4 Ardents (lighter / lower rolling resistance).

    Any thoughts on the 2.35 Ikon's versus the 2.40 Racing Ralph EVO's? The RR's look like they may have higher volume, but at their weight, I'm concerned about their durability.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter View Post
    The 2.35 Ikon's look like a more comparable replacement than the 2.4 Ardents (lighter / lower rolling resistance).
    ...but less traction and only much lighter if you don't take the EXO Version.

    Two different tires for two different purposes.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    16
    Thanks for all the great info. I'm new to mountain biking and learning something new every day.

  21. #21
    Pick a wheel size...
    Reputation: jimithng23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    485

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    This is great news. I LOVE my 2.25 Ikons - they've held up through 2 seasons of racing and I'm glad to hear I'll have a higher volume option for this season.

  22. #22
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,929
    Here's a quick side by side of the 2.2 next to the 2.35 (proto), both on Crest rims:

    Last edited by teamdicky; 02-03-2013 at 02:50 PM.
    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

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

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by teamdicky View Post
    Here's a quick side by side of the 2.2 next to the 2.35 (proto), both on Crest rims:
    I should've waited a couple weeks for those prototypes to arrive before turning in my notice. Hate that I didn't get one of these..
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  24. #24
    Warrior's Society
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    6,798
    Quote Originally Posted by teamdicky View Post
    Here's a quick side ** side of the 2.2 next to the 2.35 (proto), both on Crest rims:


    WOW!!!!!! Can't wait.
    I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it is requested or not.
    Bucky the Cat

  25. #25
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    I can't wait to try a pair of those.

    My LGS was already drooling over these and didn't think the 2.35's would be available until late spring / early summer (I needed new tires now), so I picked up a pair of 2.4 Ardents to tide me over. The tread feels a little chunkier than I'd like, but they definitely roll better than I expected.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter View Post
    I can't wait to try a pair of those.

    My LGS was already drooling over these and didn't think the 2.35's would be available until late spring / early summer (I needed new tires now), so I picked up a pair of 2.4 Ardents to tide me over. The tread feels a little chunkier than I'd like, but they definitely roll better than I expected.
    2,4" Ardents are SOOO good! Tried a few other tires during the next three years but always come back to the Ardents.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rallymaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by DerBergschreck View Post
    But there is a Ignitor Version with EXO protection.
    I never understood what the Ignitor is good for. An Ardent should make better job.
    it's more bite than Ikon 2.2
    the new Ikon may be great front tire if you're willing to sacrifice over 100g vs. Ignitor.

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by DerBergschreck View Post
    2,4" Ardents are SOOO good! Tried a few other tires during the next three years but always come back to the Ardents.
    I doubt if you will ever find a better 29" front tire than the Ardent 2.4. Sure it's a bit heavy, but it rolls AND it grips.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    975
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Raton View Post
    I doubt if you will ever find a better 29" front tire than the Ardent 2.4. Sure it's a bit heavy, but it rolls AND it grips.
    They last forever too!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: albertdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    475
    @BruceBrown: Thanks for all the measurements and impressions of the Ikon 2.35. You made some comparisons to the Nobby Nic 2.35 in terms of size and you did say that the Ikons felt like they hooked up in the corners earlier than the Nic. Any other riding impressions comparing the 2 tires? If you had to choose one of those to ride all the time, I'm guessing you would choose the Ikon, but why? Also, would you go for EXO or non-EXO version if buying retail?
    Thanks for your comparisons.

  31. #31
    Clydesdale Warrior
    Reputation: sh0rty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    155

    Which one for wet spring front tire?

    Edit: Question withdrawn. LBS confirmed with supplier that none of these will be available in time for this spring.

    Looking into other options.

    Thanks,

    sh0rty :P
    Last edited by sh0rty; 02-06-2013 at 04:02 PM. Reason: Question withdrawn.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Raton View Post
    I doubt if you will ever find a better 29" front tire than the Ardent 2.4. Sure it's a bit heavy, but it rolls AND it grips.
    I take it you've never rode it in the wet, muddy, and rooty. It sucks big time.
    Quote Originally Posted by GlazedHam View Post
    They last forever too!
    That they do.
    konahonzo

  33. #33
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by albertdc View Post
    @BruceBrown: Thanks for all the measurements and impressions of the Ikon 2.35. You made some comparisons to the Nobby Nic 2.35 in terms of size and you did say that the Ikons felt like they hooked up in the corners earlier than the Nic. Any other riding impressions comparing the 2 tires? If you had to choose one of those to ride all the time, I'm guessing you would choose the Ikon, but why? Also, would you go for EXO or non-EXO version if buying retail?
    Thanks for your comparisons.
    Looking for an all-arounder?

    The Ikon 2.35 is faster rolling resistance wise than the Nobby Nic 2.35. Two totally different types of tires with the Nic being an all around or "all-grounder" and the Ikon being a XC specific race tire. And yes, it happens to now be coming available in a larger volume size that benefits from the taller side lugs to be more aggressive than the 2.2 version of the Ikon that we all know. I guess it could suffice as an "all-arounder" depending on the rider, terrain, soil, lack of rain/wet, etc... .
    Which one between the two?

    I would probably compare the Ardent 2.4 more with the Nobby Nic rather than trying to choose between an Ikon and a Nic. Ikon, to me, compares in a very similar vein to the Racing Ralph.

    For me, it depends on what bike I would be riding when it comes to choosing a tire to ride all the time. And as I said above - a lot depends on what kind of trails and rider you are. I do run the Nic 2.35's front and rear on my all-around knock-around bike - RIP 9. I like the volume and overall performance of the tire on that bike, but that is for that bike - my all-arounder. I raced the NN 2.25's last year front and rear on my JET 9 all season long. This year looks to have the Ikon 2.35 on the front of my JET 9 with either an Ikon or some such XC race tire with smaller volume in the rear. But that's XC racing specific. The Ikon is not as good in wet/mud as other tires that are available - so that may or may not remove an element of "all-arounderness" based on where you ride, when you ride and the conditions you face. It may very well be a worthy all-arounder for somebody in dry, buff XC type local conditions. Especially the 2.35 with the longer side lugs.

    I could even see a Nic 2.35 up front and the new Ikon 2.35 in the rear for my needs on the RIP. Or the Ikon 2.35 front and rear on my SS KMonkey, or Dos Niner. Or JET. Or a lesser volume rear tire on all of those. Plenty of ways to mix it up and lots of possibilities. Again it depends on the rider, local terrain and soil, conditions, bike, rider needs/desires. I can't narrow my own riding down to one bike or one tire - so I don't feel comfortable doing it for you.

    EXO or non-EXO?

    I would probably go non-EXO for my purchase simply based on the reality that the Midwest is pretty buff (I've only torn 2 tires since moving here in 2003 from Austria). I've had good luck with the non-EXO in the Ikon 2.2 (been through 2 pair of them to date with the center tread wearing down from all the miles) since they came out in 29"er size. Again that's me and for my terrain and riding style. Your needs may be quite different or even opposite than mine. And weather always changes the situation, so what worked in last year's drought for me - may not work for me this year if the rain returns.

    Why are you limiting yourself to one pair of tires? I would suggest getting 1/2 dozen or so of various things to match your local terrain and specific riding skills/needs.
    Last edited by BruceBrown; 02-06-2013 at 04:22 AM.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by eurospek View Post
    I take it you've never rode it in the wet, muddy, and rooty. It sucks big time.
    No - not here. Perhaps because I ride it on 29c rims with 1,2 bar?

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: albertdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    475
    @BruceBrown: Dude! you rock! Thanks for your opinions regarding the Ikon 2.35 vs NN 2.35. I currently have the NN 2.35 on the front, and the Ikon EXO 2.2 on the rear, of my RIP 9 out here in Salt Lake City, UT. It has been a great tire on a great all-mountain bike. I have never tried the Ardent, but went with the NN because my understanding is that the NN is a lighter, faster tire than the Ardent, but still high-volume and with great grip on our terrain. I do XC and light all-mountain style riding with friendly racing, especially on climbs, so the lighter weight and fast rolling of the NN has served me well. It does sound like the Ikon 2.35 will be worth checking out this summer, especially if I start racing. I don't feel like the Ikon 2.2 would have been aggressive enough on the front, but the taller knobs, wider tread and higher volume of the 2.35 sound great.

    As much as I would like trying out half a dozen tires, I only have one worthy wheelset and honestly don't want to be swapping tires on and off depending on the ride that day. That is more mess and hassle than I am willing to deal with (one way that tubeless is a bit of a pain, IMHO). Although, I could see running the Ikon 2.35 most of the time and changing to the NN for trips to Moab....hmm.....

    Thanks Again.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skiahh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,588
    Bruce - have you had the opportunity to ride the Specialized Ground Control? Wondering how it compares to the Ikon, since both are now in the 2.3" range?

  37. #37
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by skiahh View Post
    Bruce - have you had the opportunity to ride the Specialized Ground Control? Wondering how it compares to the Ikon, since both are now in the 2.3" range?
    No, I have no experience with any of the Specialized tires.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SteveF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,938
    Huh, wonder how that bigger Ikon would compare with a Geax Saguaro as a front tire? I like the way the Saguaro rolls but some more aggressive side/edge knobs would be welcome sometimes. I had a 2.2 Ikon as a rear tire for a while and it was fast and surprisingly grippy...

  39. #39
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF View Post
    Huh, wonder how that bigger Ikon would compare with a Geax Saguaro as a front tire? I like the way the Saguaro rolls but some more aggressive side/edge knobs would be welcome sometimes. I had a 2.2 Ikon as a rear tire for a while and it was fast and surprisingly grippy...
    If the sun actually shines this weekend and it does get into the mid to upper 40's, I will try and get some measurements on the height of side lugs between the older 2.2 Ikon and the new 2.35. Looks to be about 1.x - 2mm more on the 2.35, but I haven't measured yet. The 2.35 is much grippier in corners on the front than the 2.2 thanks to the volume, side lug height and aggressiveness of it - all of which you can pretty much see in the pictures TeamDicky and I have posted up in this thread.

    <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.jpg" width="489" height="500" alt="IkonFrontTest"></a>

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,248
    I want to say I made the shoulder knobs 1.5mm taller than on the Ikon 2.2. I kept the center knobs the same height. The tread pattern was scaled up accordingly to fit the larger carcass. And the shoulder knobs were made even wider to account for the additional height (to improve rigidity.)
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  41. #41
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,916

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    I'm curious to try these on the Yelli after I wear out the tires currently on it. Assuming I can fit one in the back, anyway.

  42. #42
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,653
    Does the EXO protection help sidewall stiffness significantly? Maybe offering a tiny bit more support and maybe a bit more snake bite protection? Or is it simply a tear, cut, and snag resistance fabric maybe like Spectra?

    Also, what happened to LUST? Didn't that have something that helped sidewall stiffness?

  43. #43
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    I want to say I made the shoulder knobs 1.5mm taller than on the Ikon 2.2. I kept the center knobs the same height. The tread pattern was scaled up accordingly to fit the larger carcass. And the shoulder knobs were made even wider to account for the additional height (to improve rigidity.)
    You designed it just right.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Does the EXO protection help sidewall stiffness significantly? Maybe offering a tiny bit more support and maybe a bit more snake bite protection? Or is it simply a tear, cut, and snag resistance fabric maybe like Spectra?
    "Significantly" is a relative term, but an increase in sidewall stiffness is noticeable to me. Exo tires also feel more damped (i.e. less 'bouncy'), and so I generally run them 1-2 psi less than their non-Exo eXC counterparts. The Exo fabric isn't a thin fabric like Spectra, Vectran, or Kevlar, but rather a thicker 60x60 tpi woven fabric with excellent abrasion resistance and very good cut resistance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Also, what happened to LUST? Didn't that have something that helped sidewall stiffness?
    The Ardent 29x2.25 and CrossMark 29x2.1 LUST (UST) models were developed and released, but no other models or sizes have been. Exo-Protection doesn't provide quite the same level of sidewall stiffness, but it does add some. LUST tires are considerably heavier than their non-UST counterparts.
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    You designed it just right.
    Thanks, man
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    684
    Booo, website says that the Minion DHF and DHR are both single ply casings. Are they not making a dual ply 29er tire? I was hoping for a WTB Dissent replacement.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bholwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch1413 View Post
    Booo, website says that the Minion DHF and DHR are both single ply casings. Are they not making a dual ply 29er tire? I was hoping for a WTB Dissent replacement.
    I think you were looking in the 'Mountain' section. Try the 'Downhill' section: Minion DHF

    1255g. Not too bad for a 29er DH tire.
    Tire Design & Development Engineer. The opinions expressed in this forum are solely my own.

  48. #48
    bog
    bog is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    You designed it just right.
    Agreed, the 2.35 Ikon is a great tire and well worth the weight penalty over the 2.2. Having used both the standard casing and the EXO I tend to like the EXO as a rear tire and the standard as a front tire. The EXO casing adds a bit more support for body weight, has less roll under cornering and feels a bit better on bigger hits. The standard casing tire is nice for the front because it is lighter which makes steerer mildly more responsive and it is slightly more supple resulting in better traction over roots.

    Right now I'm running a 2.2 on the rear of my HighballC and a 2.35 on the front because the 2.35 is a bit big for the rear and comes a little too close to my chainstays under very hard cornering (takes the paint off). It is a great combo.
    Tallboy3 CC : Nomad3 CC: Highball2 CC : Stigmata2 CC

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,056
    I recently got new a pair of the 2.2 EXO for some endurance events I've got coming up this spring. I've been on the EXC and EXO versions of these since they came out and love them.

    Might have to give the 2.35 a shot as a front tire.

    But, my recent 2.2" EXO tires came in WAY above claimed weight. I hope I just got a bad draw and that things aren't trending up in weight across the board. One was 620g (not too bad), but the other was 645g. I had to use one (picked the lighter one of course ) because of a flat, but the really porky one is still sitting here.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    I think you were looking in the 'Mountain' section. Try the 'Downhill' section: Minion DHF

    1255g. Not too bad for a 29er DH tire.
    So it is only tubeless ready? I was hoping for just a sized up 26x2.5 exo. Tubeless ready adds a lot of weight. That would put out of the xc range for me. Wish there was both.

  51. #51
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilarider View Post
    So it is only tubeless ready? I was hoping for just a sized up 26x2.5 exo. Tubeless ready adds a lot of weight. That would put out of the xc range for me. Wish there was both.
    I think you were looking in the 'Downhill' section. Try the 'Mountain' section: Minion DHF

    1015g. Not too bad for a 29er trail/AM+ tire. ~150g more than 26x2.5 exo

    What's tubeless ready exactly anyways? I'm picturing a thick UST bead, without the heavy extra layer of airtight butyl rubber covering the inner casing.

  52. #52
    bog
    bog is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,228
    Bryan can add some details but basically the TR versions use the same casings as their other tires with the addition of a UST bead. Every TR model I've used has installed fairly easily and inflated with a floor pump when used on a UST rim. They are a bit tight to install on Stans rims but still work well. You need to use sealant with them for sure.
    Tallboy3 CC : Nomad3 CC: Highball2 CC : Stigmata2 CC

  53. #53
    Austin, Texas
    Reputation: smokehouse4444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    164
    I will probably go tubeless soon on my '12 Specialized FSR Stumpjumper. I am having my 26er built up right now, and I am going to stick with the Racing Ralph's for that one. First time to go tubeless. But i have been running Maxxis Ikon 2.2's on my 29er here in central Texas and I've really liked them. I have been thinking about going with a little more aggressive tire that still is semi light, but has more grip. The Ikon 2.35 is very interesting, but since it wont be out for several months, i have been thinking about the 2.4 Ardents. Will it it fit alright on my stumpy? Is it too aggressive for hardpack\loose over hardpack? 2.4 Ardent on the front, 2.2 Ikon on the back...winning combo?

  54. #54
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by smokehouse4444 View Post
    I will probably go tubeless soon on my '12 Specialized FSR Stumpjumper. I am having my 26er built up right now, and I am going to stick with the Racing Ralph's for that one. First time to go tubeless. But i have been running Maxxis Ikon 2.2's on my 29er here in central Texas and I've really liked them. I have been thinking about going with a little more aggressive tire that still is semi light, but has more grip. The Ikon 2.35 is very interesting, but since it wont be out for several months, i have been thinking about the 2.4 Ardents. Will it it fit alright on my stumpy? Is it too aggressive for hardpack\loose over hardpack? 2.4 Ardent on the front, 2.2 Ikon on the back...winning combo?
    Sounds good, especially if you like a setup with low rolling resistance, and where the rear tire will break loose well in advance of the front tire. Also, if you are not a total weight weenie, the 2.4 Ardent up front will surprise you. In spite of its' less-than-flyweight status, it rolls with amazing efficiency, while gripping like a mofo.

  55. #55
    Austin, Texas
    Reputation: smokehouse4444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    164
    That is very much what I want. The Ikon's are pretty good with most of what I ride, but there are a couple of places that I ride that could use a little more up front, but still roll very nicely. On my 26er, I want very light, very fast first. The 29er is definitely more all mountain. Think I am going to go that route. I have a RockShox Reba on the Stumpy, so am I correct in thinking there should be no issue with putting 2.4's on the front?

  56. #56
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,816
    Quote Originally Posted by smokehouse4444 View Post
    That is very much what I want. The Ikon's are pretty good with most of what I ride, but there are a couple of places that I ride that could use a little more up front, but still roll very nicely. On my 26er, I want very light, very fast first. The 29er is definitely more all mountain. Think I am going to go that route. I have a RockShox Reba on the Stumpy, so am I correct in thinking there should be no issue with putting 2.4's on the front?
    I'm not 100% sure about that but it ought to be good. Might want to check with your LBS or RS to be sure. They work fine with my Niner rigid CF fork. In fact, that give me that extra bit of 'cush' up front on a full rigid bike that makes it feel just right.

  57. #57
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by smokehouse4444 View Post
    I have a RockShox Reba on the Stumpy, so am I correct in thinking there should be no issue with putting 2.4's on the front?
    Yes, plenty of room on a REBA for a 2.35 or 2.4 tire (Ardent 2.4, Nobby Nic 2.35, Ikon 2.35, etc....)

  58. #58
    hispanic mechanic
    Reputation: sslos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,481

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by smokehouse4444 View Post
    Is it too aggressive for hardpack\loose over hardpack? 2.4 Ardent on the front, 2.2 Ikon on the back...winning combo?
    I use that combo. Recently moved from San Antonio, and the Ardent/Ikon worked great at Flat Rock, Reveille Peak, BSGB...

    Los
    Whiskey is my yoga.

    dongerparty.com

  59. #59
    Austin, Texas
    Reputation: smokehouse4444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    164
    Fantastic, exactly what I needed to know. I primarily ride Reimers, Pace, and Walnut Creek so the Ikon's are great, but could use a little more "oomph" for those sandy/silty corners that get built up. At Muleshoe and particularly Rocky Hill Ranch it sounds like the Ardents would be completely in their element. I have DTSwiss 520SL rims, but whenever I have the LBS set me up for tubeless, I may go with the Stans ZTR Flow (I've already done that on the back rim).




    The Stumpy at Rocky Hill...




    ...and along the hillside at Reimers.

  60. #60
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by bholwell View Post
    I should've waited a couple weeks for those prototypes to arrive before turning in my notice. Hate that I didn't get one of these..
    You missed out. Fantastic tire!
    Nothing to see here.

  61. #61
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by bog View Post
    Bryan can add some details but basically the TR versions use the same casings as their other tires with the addition of a UST bead. Every TR model I've used has installed fairly easily and inflated with a floor pump when used on a UST rim. They are a bit tight to install on Stans rims but still work well. You need to use sealant with them for sure.
    To add a little to this, I've run every Maxxis tire (including all those listed by the OP) tubeless on Stan's rims with Stan's goop with no problem. I will say that the EXO tires work best and the others just take a little more work to get setup.
    Nothing to see here.

  62. #62
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,653
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    Yes, plenty of room on a REBA for a 2.35 or 2.4 tire (Ardent 2.4, Nobby Nic 2.35, Ikon 2.35, etc....)
    Likely no issue if anyone's thinking about clearance on Fox forks. I've seen a Surly Knard 29x3.0 tire fit in a 29er Fox fork.

    I ditched a 2.4 Ardent EXO in favor of a 2.2 Ikon EXO for SoCal trail riding; I'm thinking the 2.35 Ikon EXO will be finding its way up front for me in the future.

  63. #63
    Clydesdale Warrior
    Reputation: sh0rty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by sh0rty View Post
    Edit: LBS confirmed with supplier that none of these will be available in time for this spring.

    Looking into other options.
    Picked up a Hans Dampf Trailstar for this spring's front tire, sticking with Ardent 2.2 rear for now. Looking forward to some wet rides. (weather will not disapoint)

    sh0rty :P

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by segmenthunter View Post
    Does anyone know why Maxxis hasn't made the Ikon in a smaller width for the less technical xc racing? I love my smaller 2 but would love one a little smaller since I run suspension anyways.
    Ask Maxxis.

    If I may guess: They have the Maxxlite, which is small and extremely light and they have the Aspen, which has the same volume, but less knob height than the Ikon. No need to create an extra Ikon model when your tire range allready is all over the place.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by smokehouse4444 View Post
    Fantastic, exactly what I needed to know. I primarily ride Reimers, Pace, and Walnut Creek so the Ikon's are great, but could use a little more "oomph" for those sandy/silty corners that get built up. At Muleshoe and particularly Rocky Hill Ranch it sounds like the Ardents would be completely in their element. I have DTSwiss 520SL rims, but whenever I have the LBS set me up for tubeless, I may go with the Stans ZTR Flow (I've already done that on the back rim).




    The Stumpy at Rocky Hill...




    ...and along the hillside at Reimers.
    Is that an XL?

    Also BTW, that's a 2011. I've got the same bike in a large.

  66. #66
    Austin, Texas
    Reputation: smokehouse4444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    Is that an XL?

    Also BTW, that's a 2011. I've got the same bike in a large.
    Yes, that is an XL...and you are indeed correct, it is a 2011. I bought in the first part of 2012 knowing it was an '11, but my addled brain seemed to have forgotten until looking through some '12 specs and my bike wasnt there.


    By the way, i went with tubeless for the first time on my new Yeti 26er build...some of the new design Racing Ralphs and Holy Moly they roll fast and stick like glue. I already have the 2.4 Ardent here, and my lbs will be building me up a new front wheel...DEFINITELY going tubeless!

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    871
    Picked up mine in mid-October of 2011, and was surprised(pleasantly) to find one still available. The previous year these seemed to be extremely scarce.

    Someone else had mentioned on this forum somewhere how the Specialized frames look different; how some have the top tube and down tube joined together for an extended section, while others didn't. Looking around at some pictures on the net seemed to indicate that in the bigger sizes, the tubes weren't joined, and your pics confirm that. Also how the seat tube brace juts upward at such a steep angle shows just how big a frame it is.

    You can see the difference in this picture of my large compared to your XL.




  68. #68
    Dirty South Underdog
    Reputation: Andrea138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,727
    I didn't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to chime in and say that the 2.35 Ikon is the business. I, like, Muzz, had a prototype. It's the best rear tire for a hardtail that I've ever found. I can run nice, low pressure, so it makes all the hidden roots and bumps and things on the trail a lot less noticeable.
    Brickhouse Blog (most known unknown)

    Just Riding Along- best internet radio show on Mountain Bike Radio

  69. #69
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4,559
    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    Picked up mine in mid-October of 2011, and was surprised(pleasantly) to find one still available. The previous year these seemed to be extremely scarce.

    Someone else had mentioned on this forum somewhere how the Specialized frames look different; how some have the top tube and down tube joined together for an extended section, while others didn't. Looking around at some pictures on the net seemed to indicate that in the bigger sizes, the tubes weren't joined, and your pics confirm that. Also how the seat tube brace juts upward at such a steep angle shows just how big a frame it is.

    You can see the difference in this picture of my large compared to your XL.



    Funny... The Purgatory Control that came stock on the rear of that bike has become a favorite all-rounder. Different horses... Rolls well, grips, and decent sidewall support. Anything less than 700g of rubber on a 2.3" tire and it gets too squirmy.

  70. #70
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    No, I have no experience with any of the Specialized tires.
    i didn't like 2.2 Ikon. Prefer Racing Ralph over it. I suspect bigger Ikon will have a lots of competition in larger width X-King, Racing Ralph and even Renegade. Ikon is the heaviest though.

    went with Ground Control 2.3 as well over Rocket Ron for this upcoming season, as my racing tire in wet conditions.
    Signature

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    163
    Alright already, ETA? I really want a minion or high roller on my 29er!

  72. #72
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by weedkilla1 View Post
    Alright already, ETA? I really want a minion or high roller on my 29er!
    Mmmmm.......highroller......

    Nothing to see here.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    10
    try the ardent exo it should be tough. They do try to make tires super light nowadays its hard to get something to stand up.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    163
    Despite the much love that the Ardent has from other people - I think it corners horribly, those side knobs are just wrong.
    Schwale Hans Dampfs trailstars are ok when its dampish, but leave a bit to be desired when its dry and hard and dusty. (Summer here)
    A specialized Butcher control would be fine - specialized aren't bringing them into Aus, and nowhere sells them online.
    So I'm basically waiting for my favourite Maxxis tyres, or for Specialized to bring the Butcher into Australia.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fueledbymetal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    832
    Are these on the market yet? I'm building up a new FS bike and this is the dream tire I had for the front - I'm so pumped it actually exists now!

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA View Post
    Mmmmm.......highroller......
    Can you measure its width? (@which rim & wich pressure?)

  77. #77
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DerBergschreck View Post
    Can you measure its width? (@which rim &amp; wich pressure?)
    Will try to get it tonight.
    Nothing to see here.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rob1035's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    937
    Anybody have an idea how the Ikon 2.35 will size up? I'm wondering if it would be noticeably bigger than the RR2.25 I'm running out back.

  79. #79
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by rob1035 View Post
    Anybody have an idea how the Ikon 2.35 will size up? I'm wondering if it would be noticeably bigger than the RR2.25 I'm running out back.
    Have the proto Ikon 2.35 and the HRII mounted up now. Will get measurements tonight
    Nothing to see here.

  80. #80
    not so super...
    Reputation: SSINGA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,480

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Both on Flow rims. Measurement is widest tread block
    HRII @ 28 psi 2.28
    Ikon @ 28 psi 2.30

    These are prototypes so actual production might differ.
    Nothing to see here.

  81. #81
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,266
    I wish Maxxis would put out these tires already! I've been lucky and gotten to ride on all the sweet protos, but now I need to BUY some new tires and the only BIG 29er tire I can find is the Ardent 2.4. I want another Ikon 2.35 and HR II
    NOAH SEARS
    MRP - Brand Manager
    Pivot Cycles - Team Rider

  82. #82
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,606
    Quote Originally Posted by NoahColorado View Post
    I wish Maxxis would put out these tires already! I've been lucky and gotten to ride on all the sweet protos, but now I need to BUY some new tires and the only BIG 29er tire I can find is the Ardent 2.4. I want another Ikon 2.35 and HR II
    Patience, Grasshopper. Although it is now officially spring - depending on where you live - riding in dirt doesn't exist yet until the freeze/thaw cycle stops. Lots of products from various companies will slowly be released in April, May, and June.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,374
    Quote Originally Posted by SSINGA View Post
    Both on Flow rims. Measurement is widest tread block
    HRII @ 28 psi 2.28
    Ikon @ 28 psi 2.30

    These are prototypes so actual production might differ.
    That doesn't seem that big. I don't remember the exact numbers, but my Hans Dampf was bigger than 2.35 on a light-bicycle wide carbon rim.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by NoahColorado View Post
    I wish Maxxis would put out these tires already! I've been lucky and gotten to ride on all the sweet protos, but now I need to BUY some new tires and the only BIG 29er tire I can find is the Ardent 2.4. I want another Ikon 2.35 and HR II
    The only one which is wider than the 2,4" Ardent is the 2,5" Minion DHF. Ikon and HRII are equal or smaller.

  85. #85
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,266
    I'm not JUST looking for size, I'm looking for options. The only option right now is the Ardent 2.4 - the others HRII and Ikon are in the same ballpark. I'd like a HRII front and Ikon rear. I'm currently using Ardent front and Ikon rear, but I could go for a little more cornering bite up front (I have a Minion, but it's overkill for everyday riding - saving it for races).
    NOAH SEARS
    MRP - Brand Manager
    Pivot Cycles - Team Rider

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by NoahColorado View Post
    I'm not JUST looking for size, I'm looking for options. The only option right now is the Ardent 2.4 - the others HRII and Ikon are in the same ballpark. I'd like a HRII front and Ikon rear. I'm currently using Ardent front and Ikon rear, but I could go for a little more cornering bite up front (I have a Minion, but it's overkill for everyday riding - saving it for races).
    On One's Chunky Monkey.

  87. #87
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    On One's Chunky Monkey.
    I've been disappointed 90% of the time when I buy something other than Maxxis - so I'm leery to try something unknown. Thanks though!

    EDIT: Actually, after doing some research I'm gonna give them a try! Thanks!
    NOAH SEARS
    MRP - Brand Manager
    Pivot Cycles - Team Rider

  88. #88
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,916

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Yeah, reportedly made for On-One by Maxxis. I'm curious to hear some experiences with these. They're really under the radar, but priced very attractively.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    I have the Chunky Monkey on the rear of my bike. I love it. The Ardent with grip. Best slippery, big 29er tire I've ever used. Made by Maxxis for On One using the Ardent casing. Working great tubeless on Flows. I'm a big dude. Nice pillowy ride on the rear. Can't gush about it enough, at least for my local trails. The tire was designed with the PNW in mind, so suits me well. No idea how it will work on rocky terrain.

    If weight is an issue, then this tire is probably not for you. Also, there's a thread on this tire in the 29er forum somewhere.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,152

    New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    I have the Chunky Monkey on the rear of my bike. I love it. The Ardent with grip. Best slippery, big 29er tire I've ever used. Made by Maxxis for On One using the Ardent casing. Working great tubeless on Flows. I'm a big dude. Nice pillowy ride on the rear. Can't gush about it enough, at least for my local trails. The tire was designed with the PNW in mind, so suits me well. No idea how it will work on rocky terrain.

    If weight is an issue, then this tire is probably not for you. Also, there's a thread on this tire in the 29er forum somewhere.
    How much did yours weigh?

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,374
    Quote Originally Posted by NoahColorado View Post
    I've been disappointed 90% of the time when I buy something other than Maxxis - so I'm leery to try something unknown. Thanks though!

    EDIT: Actually, after doing some research I'm gonna give them a try! Thanks!
    Definitely let us know what you think. The price is right!

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    How much did yours weigh?
    I didn't weigh it. I had the Chunky Monkey on one hand, and a 120 tpi Surly Knard in the other hand. I wasn't certain that the Monkey wasn't the heavier tire. If I had to guess, I'd say in the 950 gram range, give or take. Twentynineinches.com has a couple of Chunky's for test, but they haven't posted weights yet. They have both the enduro and the trail extreme version--different rubber compounds.

    The 2.25 version of this tire, the On One Smorgasbord, has been weighing in at around 850 grams, but that tire is also measuring close to 2.3, so that's not horrible, just heavy. Because I'm a clyde, weekend warrioring for fun, and riding slow-track, slippery surfaces, thick casing, volume, and grip matter more to me than weight. As I said, this tire rolls better than other large volume tires I've ridden like the Trail King 2.4, the Nevegal, and the Rampage. As I said earlier, I haven't ridden on anything but soft, slippery, rooty surfaces. This tire works great for that.

    Edit: sorry for thread jack.
    Last edited by Slow Danger; 03-21-2013 at 09:12 PM.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    I have the Chunky Monkey on the rear of my bike.
    If you ride the (high traction) monkey on the rear - so what tire do you ride on the front?

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by DerBergschreck View Post
    If you ride the (high traction) monkey on the rear - so what tire do you ride on the front?
    I kinda hinted at it in another post, but I ride the Surly Knard up front/or a real fat front--I switch between. I ride a rigid bike, on the Oregon Coast. My local trails are essentially rainforest. Slippery roots everywhere. Traction is king for me and my style of riding--old man plodding.

  95. #95
    passed out in your garden
    Reputation: cmg71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,395

    Re: New Maxxis 29er tires 2013

    Ikons sound pretty good to me, to top it off the tread pattern is similar to my Bontrager 29/4 EXP (which i have found to be very good, but thats just my opinion)

    Be interested in there arrival

    My EXP4 pattern

    always mad and usually drunk......

  96. #96
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    21,622
    Just wanted to chime in a bit with a slightly differing opinion to Bruce on the Ikon. I too test Maxxis tyres and I tested the new EXO TR Ikon 2.25" and the tread when I first got it didn't give me much confidence seeing all those small knobs, reminded me of a SB8, but when I got it on the trail on my Banshee Prime I was totally gob smacked in how it performed. It was still rainy season when I got it and I was surprised at the grip I found with them on the mossy, rocky, rooty trails I love, not as good as the HR2, but damn decent and way better than the Ardent. Unfortunately you have to speak fast when tyres come up for testing as there's only so many and I missed out on the new 2.35" version, but you can bet I'll be buying at least one for my rigid, I found the 2.2" really surprised me in terms of performing as an "All Rounder" type tyre, gives good wear on the roads and rolls fast and give good wet grip once not in the mud (packs up a bit from the lots of close knobs), but on roots and rocks with slippery moss, excellent for me. FYI I ran mine in the 21-26 PSI range on Stans Flows setup tubeless and tested both the EXO and normal casing version of the new TR version.

    Favourite all round tyre from Maxxis right now would have to be the HR2, IF, you don't have to do a lot of road/commute and road riding to link up trails, because if you do it'll wear a bit fast, but not too bad in actuality for how much grip it gives. When I sent my feedback for the HR2 to Bholwell I told him that to me the HR2 had the most grip to fast rolling ratio I've experienced on a tyre.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  97. #97
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,266
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Definitely let us know what you think. The price is right!
    Got my Chunky Monkeys. $59.98 for two, delivered - pretty outstanding.

    I got one Trail Extreme and one Enduro compound, I'll be trying the TE first. Weight is 933g - pretty much what I expected with these seemingly being Ardent 2.4 casings with big healthy knobs.
    Last edited by NoahColorado; 03-29-2013 at 10:20 AM.
    NOAH SEARS
    MRP - Brand Manager
    Pivot Cycles - Team Rider

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7HVN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by NoahColorado View Post
    Got my tires. $59.98 for two, delivered - pretty outstanding.

    I got one Trail Extreme and one Enduro compound, I'll be trying the TE first. Weight is 933g.

    May I ask where you ordered them from good Sir?

  99. #99
    GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
    Reputation: NoahColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,266
    ON-ONE direct USA.

    Here
    NOAH SEARS
    MRP - Brand Manager
    Pivot Cycles - Team Rider

  100. #100
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by NoahColorado View Post
    Got my Chunky Monkeys. $59.98 for two, delivered - pretty outstanding.

    I got one Trail Extreme and one Enduro compound, I'll be trying the TE first. Weight is 933g - pretty much what I expected with these seemingly being Ardent 2.4 casings with big healthy knobs.
    Looking forward to your comments, Noah. Despite what O-O says, I designed them for front AND rear use.

    They do use the same casing size as the Ardent 2.40.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 25

Posting Permissions

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