Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,249

    Maxxis Rekon....Ardent race or Bontrager XR3........or??

    I've always run Schwalbe Racing Ralph. Excellent rolling resistance and good enough traction.....and then when I stopped racing, switched to Nobby Nic's for the extra traction. I just replaced my NN with the new Tubeless versions and decided to try something different so think I am going to return them.

    So, I have been looking at the following tires......anyone with any personal experience with any care to provide some feedback. Trails I ride are East Coast - Mid-Atlantic area PA/MD/DE - XC type riding. I'm riding an old Asylum OCD 29er. Current tires 2.25 (measured) Nobby Nics fit in the frame and could probably "squeeze" in a 2.3....maybe 2.35. So "actual" tire measured size is important.

    Tubeless option and mounting difficulty will play a part in the choice (Stans 355 ZTR rims - yes, old). The NN tubeless were pretty much impossible to mount.

    - Maxxis Rekon 2.25 front and Ikon rear (although, not sure a 2.35 would fit) or possibly a Rekon Race in the rear 2.25

    - Ardent Race looks to be a good mid-traction fast rolling choice. Maybe a 2.35 front and 2.2 rear

    - Bontrager XR3 2.2 or 2.3 front and rear or even try the XR2 in the rear.

    Feedback or thoughts?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,683
    Quote Originally Posted by KMan View Post
    - Maxxis Rekon 2.25 front and Ikon rear (although, not sure a 2.35 would fit) or possibly a Rekon Race in the rear 2.25

    - Ardent Race looks to be a good mid-traction fast rolling choice. Maybe a 2.35 front and 2.2 rear

    - Bontrager XR3 2.2 or 2.3 front and rear or even try the XR2 in the rear.

    Feedback or thoughts?
    Not a big fan of Bontrager tires... for where I ride, even as a rear tire - they don't cut the mustard.

    I have run an XR4 out back on rocky, dry terrain and find it to be adequate.

    Never run a Rekon before, so can't comment.

    I have run the Ardent Races front and back i.e. 2.35+2.2 as per your thinking & found it to be a really good combo - up until things got muddy.

    'Born to ride!'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    273
    Given your parameters, I would go Ardent Race front and rear. I would also consider a 2.3 DHRII or DHF up front.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by targnik View Post
    Not a big fan of Bontrager tires... for where I ride, even as a rear tire - they don't cut the mustard.

    I have run an XR4 out back on rocky, dry terrain and find it to be adequate.

    Never run a Rekon before, so can't comment.

    I have run the Ardent Races front and back i.e. 2.35+2.2 as per your thinking & found it to be a really good combo - up until things got muddy.

    'Born to ride!'
    Do you know if the Ardent Race run true to size or smaller/larger?

  5. #5
    Rides all the bikes!
    Reputation: Sidewalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,401
    For my non racing bikes I don't care about rolling resistance, I care about control and fun. I run Hans Dampf, Butcher, DHF/R, Magic Mary, etc.

    On my racing (XC) bikes, I still lean towards grip over rolling resistance (my last XC race was with an HD, and loved it).

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: newking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    544
    I ride east coast of Massachusetts: roots, rocks, off camber, leaves, sand etc.

    I have not tried the Ardent Race or the Rekon Race. But I am a big fan of Maxxis tires.

    I have used an Ikon as a rear tire only. It's a great tire for east coast, singelspeed or XC bike on hard to loose over hard conditions. Does not have very big nobs but the tire runs big for it's size. Like it as a rear tire. It's light and fast and does not puncture easily.

    I recently replaced my tires on my SS from Rocket Ron 2.35 Front and Ikon 2.2 Rear to Bontrager Xr3 2.4 front and Xr2 2.2 rear. This is a great combo for me now in the wet, winter conditions.

    If it was summer the other set up might be faster and roll quicker.

    the Xr3 2.4 up front is a solid tire. Grips and brakes well. Good side nobs for cornering. I had the same tire in the rear and it just felt a little slow on the singlespeed with all the nobs and size of the tire. I switched to the Xr2 2.2 and that sped things up and made the bike easier to push hard. Liking the Bontrager tires: inexpensive and good value.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    191
    im also in the mid Atlantic..

    xr3 for sure, is a great ralph alternative that is still very light, way cheaper and lasts way longer. not a fan of ardent race up front, and same with the ikons in back unless its totally hardpack and no wetness. they're too minimal and not light enough considering that imo.. havnet tried the rekons

    am running two xr3 TE 2.35s now on my xc bike and really like them.. 675gr with reasonably thick sidewalls

    (see corrected post below.. meant xr2's! ha)
    Last edited by hiss2; 1 Week Ago at 06:09 AM.

  8. #8
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    11,352
    Quote Originally Posted by hiss2 View Post
    im also in the mid Atlantic..

    xr3 for sure, is a great ralph alternative that is still very light, way cheaper and lasts way longer. not a fan of ardent race up front, and same with the ikons in back unless its totally hardpack and no wetness. they're too minimal and not light enough considering that imo.. havnet tried the rekons

    am running two xr3 TE 2.3s now on my xc bike and really like them.. 645gr with reasonably thick sidewalls
    ^^^This/these 😎👍
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,742
    Quote Originally Posted by hiss2 View Post
    im also in the mid Atlantic..

    xr3 for sure, is a great ralph alternative that is still very light, way cheaper and lasts way longer. not a fan of ardent race up front, and same with the ikons in back unless its totally hardpack and no wetness. they're too minimal and not light enough considering that imo.. havnet tried the rekons

    am running two xr3 TE 2.3s now on my xc bike and really like them.. 645gr with reasonably thick sidewalls
    I just got a 27.5x2.35" XR3 TeamIssue, was ~730g on my scale (claimed weight on the package is 705g). Mounted on 30mm rim, it has a nice round-ish profile for a rear tire, but the tread is not very aggressive, so I can't imagine running one on the front on anything loose.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by hiss2 View Post
    im also in the mid Atlantic..

    xr3 for sure, is a great ralph alternative that is still very light, way cheaper and lasts way longer. not a fan of ardent race up front, and same with the ikons in back unless its totally hardpack and no wetness. they're too minimal and not light enough considering that imo.. havnet tried the rekons

    am running two xr3 TE 2.3s now on my xc bike and really like them.. 675gr with reasonably thick sidewalls
    Quote Originally Posted by fsrxc View Post
    I just got a 27.5x2.35" XR3 TeamIssue, was ~730g on my scale (claimed weight on the package is 705g). Mounted on 30mm rim, it has a nice round-ish profile for a rear tire, but the tread is not very aggressive, so I can't imagine running one on the front on anything loose.
    lol i recant my whole review, im actually running the Xr2's! no the xr3s.. haha my bad.. but all i said is true about the the xr2, i really like it as a fairly minimal but wide xc tire, even in the front! the 29x2.35 is 675gr..

  11. #11
    Ahhh the pain....
    Reputation: Raybum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,437
    I've been running Ikon's and Ardent Races in back on bikes for several years...both are great tires and TRUE 2.2" tires...they actually seem huge. The AR's tend to hold a corner better with the big side lugs but qualitatively seem a little slower that the ikons. I've not run the rekon races yet although have a few sitting at home waiting for their turn. Some buddies running them really like them since they seem to almost be the love child of a ikon and an ardent race. Guessing they'll wear quick with low knobs, but might be the perfect race tire.
    BTW, I live in AZ where everything is rocky or loose over hard...no mud, no loamy stuff, no roots to speak of (except the occasional rattlesnake that looks like a root).

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,249
    I ended up just buying an Ardent Race 2.35 to try on the front for now.
    Actual weight was 795g vs 745g claimed. Actually measured 2.30 vs 2.35 claimed on old Stans 355 ZTR rims. Major benefit was I was able to mount by hand (needed just a bit of soapy water on the 2nd bead) and aired right up using a normal floor pump.

    Not sure if I'll try the Reckon Race 2.25 or the Ardent race 2.20 as a rear tire (the 2.3 is not going to fit on my frame).

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by KMan View Post
    I ended up just buying an Ardent Race 2.35 to try on the front for now.
    Actual weight was 795g vs 745g claimed. Actually measured 2.30 vs 2.35 claimed on old Stans 355 ZTR rims. Major benefit was I was able to mount by hand (needed just a bit of soapy water on the 2nd bead) and aired right up using a normal floor pump.

    Not sure if I'll try the Reckon Race 2.25 or the Ardent race 2.20 as a rear tire (the 2.3 is not going to fit on my frame).
    According to Maxxis, the 2.25 Aspen is a grippier tire than the 2.25 Rekon Race. I'd use the Aspen over the Ardent Race in the rear if you want fast rolling resistance.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    673
    I'm running an Ikon rear, and a forekaster front. The forekaster is a really good tire if you want light/fast/above average grip. I also like the ardent race up front.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by MudderNutter View Post
    I'm running an Ikon rear, and a forekaster front. The forekaster is a really good tire if you want light/fast/above average grip. I also like the ardent race up front.
    How is the Ikon in the rear?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by KMan View Post
    How is the Ikon in the rear?
    I love it. Rolls fast, has good grip on a lot of surfaces. I swap for something with bigger lugs if it's leafy or muddy out... but in dry conditions it's great.

  17. #17
    Ahhh the pain....
    Reputation: Raybum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,437
    So, crappy pics, but below is a darn worn out ikon (note the undercutting of the edge knobs) and a Ardent Race with maybe 200-300 miles. (both on SS's). In the right terrain (rocks and stuff), the ikon has amazing grip and even in it's worn out state, is solid. However, get it on loose over hard (decomposed granite over hardpan) and it's a sketchy mofo. The AR in contrast has such solid side knobs, they seem to last much longer before getting undercut. (but it feels like a "draggier" tire)
    Maxxis Rekon....Ardent race or Bontrager XR3........or??-img_3281.jpg
    Maxxis Rekon....Ardent race or Bontrager XR3........or??-img_3285.jpg

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,683
    Quote Originally Posted by KMan View Post
    Do you know if the Ardent Race run true to size or smaller/larger?
    2.2 is like a 2.25... I'd guess it's built up on a 2.25 carcass w/ lower profile tread - which mitigates calling it a 2.2.

    The 2.35 is built (again I'm guessing) up on the same carcass as the 2.35 Ikon.

    The 2.35 AR runs true to size & likely larger on a wider rim.

    'Born to ride!'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  19. #19
    KVV
    KVV is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by targnik View Post
    2.2 is like a 2.25... I'd guess it's built up on a 2.25 carcass w/ lower profile tread - which mitigates calling it a 2.2.

    The 2.35 is built (again I'm guessing) up on the same carcass as the 2.35 Ikon.

    The 2.35 AR runs true to size & likely larger on a wider rim.

    'Born to ride!'
    Second that. Running AR 2.35 on 27mm id rim and the casing is at least 60.5mm wide. It is actually wider than XR4 2.4 front that is ~60mm. Love AR rear!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 3 Weeks Ago, 09:02 PM
  2. Rekon 27.5 x 2.6 vs. Ardent Race 27.5 x 2.6
    By BmanInTheD in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-03-2018, 05:46 AM
  3. Bontrager XR3 Expert 2.4 vs Maxxis Ikon 3C EXO TR 2.35
    By HuffyMan in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-04-2017, 01:34 PM
  4. Bontrager XR3 Team Issue vs Maxxis Ardent Race EXO TR?
    By fongster in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-15-2015, 05:37 PM
  5. Bontrager XR3 Rear & Maxxis Ardent Front Opinions
    By los05 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-10-2012, 08:09 PM

Members who have read this thread: 123

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.