Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 198
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    305

    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 02:22 AM.

  2. #2
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,870
    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).

    IkonFrontTestToo

    IkonFrontTest
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  3. #3
    agu
    agu is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: agu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,038
    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
    8,870
    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.
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BikerJen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    333
    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
    305
    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
    305
    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
    3,512
    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.
    www.teamnavycycling.org
    10 Pivot Mach 429
    09 Felt Nine Race
    03 Litespeed Tuscany

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,157
    Thanks for the links OP!

  11. #11
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,870
    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 02:43 PM.
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  12. #12
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,870
    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
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  13. #13
    agu
    agu is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: agu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,038
    @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
    3,512
    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.
    www.teamnavycycling.org
    10 Pivot Mach 429
    09 Felt Nine Race
    03 Litespeed Tuscany

  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 03:32 AM.

  16. #16
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,870
    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.
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  17. #17
    Rep'n the 905
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    259
    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
    1,539
    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
    305
    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
    Is this Eundro'ing?
    Reputation: jimithng23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    410

    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.
    2013 Lenz PunkAss Lunchbox -- One of a Kind
    2013 Salsa Mukluk
    2011 Niner MCR 9

  22. #22
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,617
    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 01:50 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
    2,061
    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
    4,575
    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 crashed hard enough on my Tallboy to break my leg,
    The carbon is way more durable than most people.

  25. #25
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,539
    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.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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