Anyone using a High Roller II up front on a 95?
I'm planning on running an Ardent in the back to swap out the Ikon (prefer the braking ability of a more aggressive back tire) and was thinking about an Ardent 2.4 up front as well, but the High Roller II 2.3 is catching my eye (although heavy, I like something aggressive up front and I noticed Yeti is spec'ing the SB75s with them).
But right now I'm running the OEM DT Swiss XR400 rims which are pretty narrow (24mm OD..so I think they're 19mm ID). That might be an issue until I swap out to Stans Flow or Arch.
Anyone use the HRII up front on a 95?
(I ordered one and have about 30 miles on it - tried it out as a rear tire first (a 2.3) with a 2.4 Ardent up front riding in hard-pack sand right now and it worked pretty well. If you like to drift corners, it is excellent.
I really wanted to use the HR as a front tire - I don't care for the Ardent up front - it pushes too much in corners and for me, was too unpredictable, so I put the HRII up front with a 2.2 Ikon in back for the ride today. The HR was definitely better for cornering, which I still think is surprising given the major channel on each side with no transition knobs at all.
Anyway - FYI. HRII up front, so far, so good. I plan to put a 2.25 Ardent in back with the HRII 2.3 up front fairly soon. Or I may bail on Maxxis all-together and go back to my stand-by Continental MKII in front and back.
I wish there was an easy way to spend a day testing a bunch of tires back to back, without having to buy a bunch, of course. It's the only way to really tell the difference accurately in my opinion.)
I will say I liked the HRII on the front of the 75 when I demoed it.
It did roll slower and took more power to keep rolling at speed than the 2.4 ardent but it did bite better in corners when sitting and turning .
I generally do not sit and corner at speed so the Ardent works great on cornering for me when standing weighting the front .
I did have trouble pedaling the 2.25 Ardent in the rear ,( I'm old and weaker than most ) the tire worked really well for traction and braking , and a funny side note is that the 2.25 Ardent in the rear made the 2.4 Ardent in the front stick better when cornering while sitting , but it did hurt me pedaling it up climbs , but it did have really good traction while climbing as long as I could keep it spinning .
I finally put the Ikon 2.35 EXO in the rear and now I can pedal the bike much easier and keep on top of a taller gear much easier and ride longer ,..... traction on loose climbs is good but you gotta be smooth .
I want to try the Continentals and the Bontragers as well , it does take a lot of time and effort getting the correct tires for riding style and terrain .
P.S. I have found 23 psi in the rear 2.35 and 21 psi in the front 2.4 Ardent work for me .
I put another 13 miles on the HRII / Ikon today in what-is-now hard pack dirt / sandy mix and I'm still pretty surprised how well the HRII works up front. I really tried to push my corner speed in loose dirt / sandy corners and it didn't give an inch at all. Only downer is the weight.
Originally Posted by kelstr
For me the Ardent was too unpredictable. I lost the front end too much to want to keep it. I want to try a 2.25 in back; the Ikon is good, but I like to run aggressive tires for braking.
And FYI - the Continental tires with the ProTection sidewalls are bullet-proof. I've ran them exclusively the past two seasons (tubeless) without one single failure. I'm still tempted to go ahead and buy two Mountain King IIs and just run 'em. Their X-King is pretty good too and similar in purpose / tread design to the Ikon.
By ride the biscuit in forum All Mountain
Last Post: 06-25-2013, 11:53 AM
By haakan in forum All Mountain
Last Post: 06-24-2012, 10:17 PM
By genemk in forum Downhill - Freeride
Last Post: 06-04-2012, 09:49 PM
By kjsayers in forum Where are the Best Deals?
Last Post: 01-01-2012, 04:29 PM
By kjsayers in forum Wheels and Tires
Last Post: 12-12-2011, 01:30 PM