# Maxxis Ardent race



## weedkilla1 (Jan 1, 2009)

Holy blithering heck!

I'm a bit of a tyre junkie and I hadn't found much 29er stuff that floated my boat. Least favourite of all was the original ardent, it rolled well for its size but that was all it seemed good at.

When pics came out of the ardent race I figured that looked pretty cool, probably to replace when I would use a crossmark. At least the side knobs line up.

Getting the tyre in the flesh, it is totally redesigned and bears very little resemblance to the original Ardent. Smaller knobs, more closed tread, more solid corner knobs. Casing was 54mm wide, knobs were probably 56mm wide, so 2.2" is an accurate size! 

I couldn't get the exo version, so I got the ordinary one and mounted it on the front (Norco Shinobi, running a Pike). The sidewall felt pretty reasonable, even in the ordinary version, but I destroy sidewalls on the rear so its ust or exo only. I wasnt sure if it would stay there so I just mounted it with a tube for simplicity. I paired it with a 2.25 racing ralph on the rear as I had the snakeskin version of it and it was the exact same width across the casing.

First ride - 

I came off high rollers so I knew it was going to feel fast. What I didn't expect was that the level of grip was going to be so high. 
Honestly on hard pack, rock, roots, light dust covered trails it was amazing. Deep loose stuff, not so much. It didnt have the open space or knob height to deal with it. I'm guessing come winter time it will pack up easily.

By FAR the best tyre I've used for trail riding. If first impressions are correct, this tyre is a game changer the way that the Minion changed DH when it came out. I firmly believe that. It will stay on my bike till I need a winter tyre. 

I will weigh it, tubeless it and go again. I will also start hassling for an exo version for the rear (showed up the racing ralph as the weird, skittery, squirm and skip at the same time thing that schwalbe xc tyres can be) and some 26" versions for my sons bike.


----------



## alexcited (Apr 25, 2010)

I'm in the market for new tires myself. I'll have to check these out!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

Looking forward to the weight. This tire was introduced over a year ago and maxxis still doesn't have any specs on their site. Way to go maxxis.


----------



## weedkilla1 (Jan 1, 2009)

Ardent race 3c tr 2.2 x 29 = 687gm

Thought I'd grab some other weights, to at least give some relevance to my numbers. All weights on the same scale.

Racing Ralph pace star snakeskin 2.25 x 29 = 710gm
Ikon exception 2.2 x 29 = 570gm
Ardent exo 2.4 x 29 = 842gm
Conti x-king 2.2 x 29 = 770gm
Conti mountain king 2.4 x 29 = 783gm

To my mind, the ardent race is about the minimum reliable trail riding weight. I assume the exo version will weigh low 700's.
I'm not certain that "race" should be in the name, unless you are talking enduro. Certainly far too porky for the traditional xc crowd.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I want to see pics. Agree 100% with you on the original 2.25" Ardent, sucked big time as a front tyre for me, can't say I like the 2.4" version much better, but the bigger/taller knobs help. Have the new 2.25" Ardent in 650B and it looks almost the same as the 2.4", but haven't seen the race version of this tyre.


----------



## JoshM (Apr 3, 2010)

This thread needs pics big time. Wonder how it would do as a rear?


----------



## weedkilla1 (Jan 1, 2009)

A Google image search produced better photos than I can. 
I'm sure it will be excellent as a rear, just like the original ardent only more predictable when leaned over. The lower knob height may have a slight positive impact on rolling resistance, the 3c (maxxspeed) compound is pretty good, I'd imagine it will sit between the crossmark and ikon for rolling resistance.
The center line is solid enough that most people should even get reasonable mileage, even those who have to ride roads to get to the trails.
I have friends who are blessed with the problem of wheelspin when they climb on a crossmark, when I get a rear I will make sure they have a go. Either my puny chicken legs don't develop the same power or I am amazingly skilled after all these years riding  

The schwalbe tyres will always feel more lively, I'm still fairly certain they are the king of low rolling resistance, but finding the gems in their range can be a frustrating and expensive exercise.


----------



## elsinore (Jun 10, 2005)

Is this tire available yet? I can't seem to find it anywhere .


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

This tire is definitely awesome. It's the hot **** tire for trail riding. I think if you are doing light singletrack riding, the IKON would be the way to go, but as the OP said, for "trail" riding this thing is the best rear tire I've tried. 

Ardent 2.4 front, Ardent Race rear. Done and done. 

-Tom


----------



## weedkilla1 (Jan 1, 2009)

What? Light singletrack riding?

I used my Ardent race for black diamond enderpo riding on the weekend. Still impressed.


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

Maybe you misread. Light single track = IKON.


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

Are you guys testers for maxxis ? Nobody has this tire listed.

Hope the exo version is in the low 700s.


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

Mine are prototypes. I was pretty excited when I heard that they were going to make them.


----------



## weedkilla1 (Jan 1, 2009)

I'm not involved in any way, I just bought them from an online shop.
Maxxis Ardent Race 29x2.20 3C EXO TR Folding MTB Tyre
I have no idea how they appear to be available in Australia before the US. That never happens.



trhoppe said:


> Maybe you misread. Light single track = IKON.


I didn't misread, I just have no idea what this is. 
I started and there was mountain biking, then xc or dh, then all mountain, now there are more sub categories than headset standards.
Race tyres are just that, for everything else you need a pattern that suits your terrain, and a compromise of weight, strength, rolling speed, grip and wear that you can live with.

The ikon weighs sub 600gm, the sidewall is noticeably lighter. It isn't a tyre I can ride reliably, the terrain I ride has too many sharp rocks. 
I think most riders can work that out for themselves, some tyres may be tough for their weight, but maxxis is pretty consistent. Close to 500gm is light but weak, 700-850 is their middle ground, 1kg or more is shuttle only dh tyres.


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

I wasn't trying to describe a discipline, but more describe the type of trail and/or terrain. 

You said your terrain has too many sharp rocks. I wouldn't describe that as "light singletrack". Your terrain is exactly the type of terrain that I would ride an Ardent on. Except my choice would be Ardent 2.4 regular on the front and the Ardent Race on the back. I just love the grip of the 2.4 and will give up a little bit of the rolling resistance for that grip. 

"Light singletrack" IMO is that sort of ribbon of packed dirt and some rocks/roots as well, but not anything that is rocky enough to tear up sidewalls. As just like you, my experience with the IKON is that it's a great tire pattern but because the tire is optimized for light weight, the sidewalls, even the EXO version don't stand up to rocks. 

I do endurance MTB racing, so 6 hour singletrack as well as 100 mile mixed terrain races. The IKON is just not worth it as one flat will set you back more than running a burlier tire. If I was doing 20 mile XC races on "light singletrack" I would choose the IKON as my weapon  

My fun trail bike (Trek Remedy) has Ardent 2.4 26" front and rear as it goes anywhere and grip > rolling resistance. 
My MTB endurance race bike (29er) has Ardent 2.4 front and Ardent Race rear
My bikepacking/exploring bike (29er) that I don't take on super rocky stuff is Ardent 2.25 front and IKON rear. That bike sees that light singletrack type of terrain as well as gravel/pavement. 

-Tom
Maxxis fanboi


----------



## ungod (Apr 16, 2011)

Interesting, looks like it'll be a good tire to pick up. 

Sidenote, but why doesn't Maxxis have more Exo tires? Being that i run mine tubeless i won't buy anything without a burly sidewall. I've been consistently disappointed to find my favorite tires unavailable with Exo in several sizes.


----------



## thuren (Jul 29, 2009)

weedkilla1 said:


> The ikon weighs sub 600gm, the sidewall is noticeably lighter. It isn't a tyre I can ride reliably, the terrain I ride has too many sharp rocks.


My Ikon 2.35 EXO's are 705g


----------



## ungod (Apr 16, 2011)

thuren said:


> My Ikon 2.35 EXO's are 705g


They were probably talking about the 2.2. I didn't realize they made a 2.35 Ikon Exo though, good to know. How's the *actual* width? My 2.2's are more like a 2.0-2.1.


----------



## thuren (Jul 29, 2009)

Porch said:


> They were probably talking about the 2.2. I didn't realize they made a 2.35 Ikon Exo though, good to know. How's the *actual* width? My 2.2's are more like a 2.0-2.1.


At about 35psi, 2.30" casing, 2.36" knob-to-knob. This is on 24mm ID rims.

Sweet freaking tires. Very flat profile so the side knobs engage quick.


----------



## thuren (Jul 29, 2009)

I'd be curious to know some actual casing height and width numbers. If big enough, I'd love to try the Ardent Race.


----------



## weedkilla1 (Jan 1, 2009)

54mm casing width, 56mm tread. On a 23mm id rim.


----------



## thuren (Jul 29, 2009)

weedkilla1 said:


> 54mm casing width, 56mm tread. On a 23mm id rim.


Bummer...... If they made that tire in a 59mm or so casing width, with a tallish sidewall, I'd be all over it. Liking the higher volume tires for expensive carbon rim protection.


----------



## TurnerConvert (Dec 1, 2004)

weedkilla1 said:


> Holy blithering heck!
> 
> I'm a bit of a tyre junkie and I hadn't found much 29er stuff that floated my boat. Least favourite of all was the original ardent, it rolled well for its size but that was all it seemed good at.
> 
> ...


I've been riding a prototype version of this tire that I was fortunate enough to get my hands on early in the riding season. I am not a racer (couldn't be much further from it), and I ride on rough and rocky east coast trails. In the past the Exo Ikon was my favorite rear tire because it rolled fast, gripped well enough for my riding style and held up reasonably well (I could get 2-3 months on it generally, although a friend trashed his in one ride - I guess I have a little finesse...). However, the Ardent TR Race that I have is IMO the perfect tire for a rider like me. It has been substantially more durable - at 6-7 months of use the sidewalls show minimal scuffing and only a few surface cuts. The tire rolls well, and while I am sure it is heavier than the Ikon (sorry - I didn't weight it before I mounted it), the extra weight is more than welcome for the durability it provides. The most noticeable thing at this point is that the side knobs are certainly looking pretty chewed up. Not to the point where I won't use the tire, but you can definitely see the tire is well used.

For my $$ I'd buy this tire again in a heartbeat. I can only hope that Maxxis hasn't made any substantial changes from the version that I am running. I'm sure there are folks out there that would prefer it to be lighter but as far as I'm concerned that is what the Ikon is for. I can't wait for the Ardent TR Race to hit the market.


----------



## antonio (Jan 18, 2005)

Favorite rear tire, or front and back?

Thanks!


----------



## TurnerConvert (Dec 1, 2004)

antonio said:


> Favorite rear tire, or front and back?
> 
> Thanks!


It's my favorite rear tire. I've been running a 2.35 Nobby Nic up front and am happy enough with it to keep using it. The Ardent Race TR is the one I rave about though.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

You should really do yourself a favour and put a HR2 on the front and learn what real confidence and grip is like 


TurnerConvert said:


> It's my favorite rear tire. I've been running a 2.35 Nobby Nic up front and am happy enough with it to keep using it. The Ardent Race TR is the one I rave about though.


----------



## TurnerConvert (Dec 1, 2004)

LyNx said:


> You should really do yourself a favour and put a HR2 on the front and learn what real confidence and grip is like


I have no doubt that the HR2 is impressive as far as grip goes, but it is way more tire than I want to push, and is really overkill for my riding (at least my riding style). I had a Hans Dampf up front (tried both PaceStar and TrailStar compounds), and the extra effort to pedal these on anything flat to uphill was very noticeable for me. Maybe if I can get back to riding >2 times per week, I'd be happier to accept the extra rolling resistance that comes with the improved grip that the HR2 offers. For now the Nobby Nic isn't perfect, but it is a reasonable compromise.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

TurnerConvert said:


> I have no doubt that the HR2 is impressive as far as grip goes, but it is way more tire than I want to push, and is really overkill for my riding (at least my riding style). I had a Hans Dampf up front (tried both PaceStar and TrailStar compounds), and the extra effort to pedal these on anything flat to uphill was very noticeable for me. Maybe if I can get back to riding >2 times per week, I'd be happier to accept the extra rolling resistance that comes with the improved grip that the HR2 offers. For now the Nobby Nic isn't perfect, but it is a reasonable compromise.


funny I experimented with hans dampf and nobby nic in front. The hans dampf is rock solid, but I shaved a ton of weight going to the nobby nic and I could definitely feel it. The nobby nic isnt as sure footed, but is still "just right".

Right now Im trying to work my skills up so I can ride an ikon in the rear. It is so fast.. Im riding a specialized ground control which is faster than a 2.25 ardent but has a touch less grip. When I tried the ikon I was failing to make lots of technical stuff. Eventually my skills will reach the point where it will be ok.

A friend of mine rides 590g bontrager tires (look similar to SB 8's) on the same terrain and clears everything because he is a much better rider. If I tried to do that I would be walking everything.


----------



## TedS123 (Dec 2, 2009)

TurnerConvert said:


> I've been riding a prototype version of this tire that I was fortunate enough to get my hands on early in the riding season. I am not a racer (couldn't be much further from it), and I ride on rough and rocky east coast trails. In the past the Exo Ikon was my favorite rear tire because it rolled fast, gripped well enough for my riding style and held up reasonably well (I could get 2-3 months on it generally, although a friend trashed his in one ride - I guess I have a little finesse...). However, the Ardent TR Race that I have is IMO the perfect tire for a rider like me. It has been substantially more durable - at 6-7 months of use the sidewalls show minimal scuffing and only a few surface cuts. The tire rolls well, and while I am sure it is heavier than the Ikon (sorry - I didn't weight it before I mounted it), the extra weight is more than welcome for the durability it provides. The most noticeable thing at this point is that the side knobs are certainly looking pretty chewed up. Not to the point where I won't use the tire, but you can definitely see the tire is well used.
> 
> For my $$ I'd buy this tire again in a heartbeat. I can only hope that Maxxis hasn't made any substantial changes from the version that I am running. I'm sure there are folks out there that would prefer it to be lighter but as far as I'm concerned that is what the Ikon is for. I can't wait for the Ardent TR Race to hit the market.


I run the 2.2 Ikon Exo on the rear of my ht and generally like it, especially given the weight. My two minor complaints are volume and climbing grip in loose conditions. How does the Ardent race compare to the Ikon 2.2 in these areas? I'd be willing to give up some weight for a little more cush. Was considering going to an Ikon 2.35 on the rear like I run on the front.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## TurnerConvert (Dec 1, 2004)

TedS123 said:


> I run the 2.2 Ikon Exo on the rear of my ht and generally like it, especially given the weight. My two minor complaints are volume and climbing grip in loose conditions. How does the Ardent race compare to the Ikon 2.2 in these areas? I'd be willing to give up some weight for a little more cush. Was considering going to an Ikon 2.35 on the rear like I run on the front.


I'll check the width tomorrow - however, it isn't an incredibly high-volume tire and I would ballpark it as being similar to the 2.2 ikon. Also, the tread on the Ardent Race is a lower tread height than the original Ardent; I think it's a little taller than the Ikon but not significantly. The place for me where the Ardent shines is the combination of durability and lowish rolling resistance. It seems like most tires that roll well have flimsy sidewalls that I wreck in a handful of rides and most tires that are built to be durable roll like tanks. The Ardent Race (prototype in my case) is the rare combination of these two. As I said before I just hope they haven't changed it much from the prototype I have going into production - otherwise I personally don't think there would be much to differentiate this from the Ikon.


----------



## BacDoc (May 31, 2011)

weedkilla1 said:


> Ardent race 3c tr 2.2 x 29 = 687gm
> 
> Thought I'd grab some other weights, to at least give some relevance to my numbers. All weights on the same scale.
> 
> ...


Interesting to see real world weights. Most retailers list the 29 2.25 RR snake skin as 605g.


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

I haven't seen the Ardent race yet but sounds promising. There was a lot of discussion a few months ago on the Ikon 2.35. I just put one on and its def. different tire than the Ikon 2.2. Much taller side knobs, and a lot of volume. Looks to be a great rear tire paired with the new Ardent up front.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Anybody have any idea when these are coming out in the US??


----------



## PAmtbiker (Feb 2, 2005)

8iking VIIking said:


> Anybody have any idea when these are coming out in the US??


Followed, because I want to know as well. Looks like my ideal race tire.


----------



## Vermont29er (May 27, 2006)

I've been really happy with a "micro knob" type tire in the back for endurance events. Conti Race King rolls real nice and grips great though I put a hole in the sidewall that spwed sealant so I switched back to a tube.

I'm mainly rolling on a pair of Hans Dampfs in TrailStar compound these days. They roll just fine compared to my Big Dummy with a toddler on the back


----------



## White Bear (Jun 12, 2013)

Anyone find the Ardent Race in 29 in the US?


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

White Bear said:


> Anyone find the Ardent Race in 29 in the US?


BTI and QBP still don't have any eta on them.


----------



## evilsync (Dec 11, 2013)

With ardent's being a popular front, would ardent race's make a good XC front (XC trails with the occasional race)? I've noticed lots of talk about using it as a rear...

Thinking about Ardent race at the front and Ignitors at the rear (or would crossmark/ikon make a better alternative)?

edit: looks like ikon might be on the rear instead of ignitors for 27.5" (ignitors not in 27.5")....hmm or crossmarks?


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

From what I've read it sounds like it would be an awesome front tire for xc applications. Or as a rear for a trail bike with a beefier tire up front. Would love to try one but would rather not order one from overseas...


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

If you're looking for tyres for real XC, then I'd say Crossmark R/Ikon F. Crossmarks will still give you an amazing amount of traction and grip out back and the Ikon will match the sort of grip fr cornering as compared to the Crossmark on the rear, IMHO.



evilsync said:


> With ardent's being a popular front, would ardent race's make a good XC front (XC trails with the occasional race)? I've noticed lots of talk about using it as a rear...
> 
> Thinking about Ardent race at the front and Ignitors at the rear (or would crossmark/ikon make a better alternative)?
> 
> edit: looks like ikon might be on the rear instead of ignitors for 27.5" (ignitors not in 27.5")....hmm or crossmarks?


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Ikon 2.35 front/ikon 2.2 rear is a good combo. I suppose ikon 2.35 front/ cross mark rear would work well also. I wouldn't recommend the ikon 2.2 out front though....its just not grippy enough IMO


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

White Bear said:


> Anyone find the Ardent Race in 29 in the US?


Just call up Maxxis USA; they should be able to give you an ETA. Maxxis International Locations & Contact Information



evilsync said:


> With ardent's being a popular front, would ardent race's make a good XC front (XC trails with the occasional race)? I've noticed lots of talk about using it as a rear...
> 
> Thinking about Ardent race at the front and Ignitors at the rear (or would crossmark/ikon make a better alternative)?
> 
> edit: looks like ikon might be on the rear instead of ignitors for 27.5" (ignitors not in 27.5")....hmm or crossmarks?


Every year I would order some special one-off's for my sponsored riders, and one tire would always be the Ardent 2.25 with a 120 tpi casing; essentially a lightweight version of the Ardent for XC for the front, where sidewall protection is not usually needed. I thought it would be better to make an XC race-specific version of the Ardent for the public, though; hence the Ardent Race was developed. So it was really designed as a front tire XC race tread, though the Exo version should make a great rear trail tire.

I would pair it with an Ikon on the rear. Although if your trail conditions are really loose, you could go with the Ignitor. Or if you ride a lot of pavement to the trail head, go with the CrossMark.


----------



## GMM (Mar 2, 2004)

I just received mine yesterday. I'm in California and ordered internationally from Pushys online. Simple push of the button and it arrived in 2 weeks.


----------



## White Bear (Jun 12, 2013)

GMM said:


> I just received mine yesterday. I'm in California and ordered internationally from Pushys online. Simple push of the button and it arrived in 2 weeks.


Awesome, what do you think of them now that you see them in the flesh? Ride report to follow?


----------



## GMM (Mar 2, 2004)

Just mounted it up last night. It's a good looking tire for sure. 747 grams in EXO/TR version. I like the look of the tread pattern . I am looking for a faster rolling tire with some reasonable grip, and I hope these are the ticket. Will trade off some weight for durability/cornering so long as there is good rolling resistance.

I will report back after my first ride.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

GMM said:


> View attachment 854631
> 
> 
> Just mounted it up last night. It's a good looking tire for sure. 747 grams in EXO/TR version. I like the look of the tread pattern . I am looking for a faster rolling tire with some reasonable grip, and I hope these are the ticket. Will trade off some weight for durability/cornering so long as there is good rolling resistance.
> ...


Awesome, looking forward to it!


----------



## GMM (Mar 2, 2004)

Despite being under the weather (not ideal testing conditions), I headed out to the trails today for my first ride on my Ardent Race EXO/TR. I paired the Race on the rear with the regular Ardent (2.25) Exo/TR on the front. These tires replaced 2.3 High Rollers, which are admittedly in a different category. The HR's are 900+ gram terrain eating beasts. If I get the courage to try an Enduro race, I'd throw those back on.

Now on to the Ardent Race. Before reaching the trailhead I had to pedal about a mile on paved road. There is a cork screw turn on the road which starts the climbing. I stood up to test the acceleration and was very pleased with how the bike jumped forward. Obviously, night and day different than than the HR's-- no surprise there. 

On the trail, the Ardents scooted along nicely on the fire road climb. (climbed about 1,500 in 5 miles). Now onto the descent: The tires picked-up speed very nicely and cornered very confidently through some fast single track. No problem through the fast rolling hills type rockier sections either. On one steep rock garden descent, the rear tire did break loose. In fairness, the section is a handful for most tires, and I would have been surprised if there was no slippage. I approached the section slowly and didn't really decelerate suddenly. So I think the slippage was a function of the tire more than technique. In this particular section, I am ok with some rear wheel slippage. Fortunately, the front wheel was well controlled.

At the end of the descent, there is a long fire road climb back to the car. It was nice to have tires with good rolling resistance and reasonable weight. On several sections of the climb, there was some loose gravel, not particularly thick but certainly noticeable. On those sections, I tried to stand and climb to test traction, and here's where the shorter knobs of the Ardent Race were a real weakness. I thought traction in those conditions was weak. Of course, it's best to avoid standing on gravel covered climbs, but there are times when I do it, and there are better tires for this. Here's where I should note that I run tire pressure higher than many on these boards. I like to keep the rear around 30 psi, whereas I see many on these boards in the low 20's. With low profile center knobs, I may drop to 27 lbs and have another go. My experience running lower than that on any tire hasn't been positive.

Since I've only had my new 29er for a short time, I don't have a bunch of 29er tire experience. So can't offer many comparisons. I definitely prefer the Ardent Race to the HR's, but am not sure it's so much faster than the regular Ardent (which I rode on several demos) to warrant the trade-off in loose climbing. I'm assuming the gravel spin out issue would also manifest itself in loose shale type conditions which I find riding the high mountains in the summer. For my local San Francisco Bay Area riding, I think the Ardent Race will be a fine tire, but I'm not ready to crown it my favorite tire yet. But I'll definitely need to adjust tire pressure before making any final decisions.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

GMM, never have been a fan of the Ardent, just don't like the lack of intermediate knobs, the only place I'll run one now is on the rear. Saying that, I like to run the HR2 upfront with something faster outback and the Ardent works a lot of the time if you don't have mud, and/or if you don't mind having to work very hard if you do for traction and control. The tyre I wish Maxxis would make a wider version of in 29", for some reason they seem dead set against - would love a 2.35" Ignitor. On my rigid I now run 2.4" Ardent rear/2.4" Chunky Monkey front and it works very well.


----------



## White Bear (Jun 12, 2013)

GMM said:


> But I'll definitely need to adjust tire pressure before making any final decisions.


Thanks for the review! good job even under the weather!
You didn't mention whether you're tubeless or tube, and your weight but I'm guessing tube. I'm running a wider rim ~ 27mm internal and find that tire traction is more dependent on inflation than tread pattern, at least for climbing rock and loose. It's about the size of the contact patch, imho, and with NN and others I typically run 20-22 psi tubeless (weigh 185 loaded). When I run 30 psi for the first few miles after putting on a new tire, it's unrecognizable...totally a pos traction wise. After lowering the pressure, the tire dynamics change dramatically. If running tubes then I understand why the higher pressures. It's no fun having snakebites.
I know you know all this, but just wanted to reiterate the point about how critical tire pressure is to tire function for others.


----------



## GMM (Mar 2, 2004)

White Bear, I'm actually running tubeless with WTB I23 rims. I also weigh close to 185 lbs, loaded with camelback. I know I have probably been too conservative with tire pressure-- mostly to avoid burping as I've had some bad experiences. Burped twice in a race last year with 26 psi, but I'll admit it was a very rocky course. I should go back out at 27 psi and see how that changes the Ardent Race's performance, which wasn't bad at 30 psi, but probably not ideal. If I need to run in the low 20's, then it probably isn't the tire for me.

LyNx, I love the grip of the HR2 upfront, and thought of pairing it with a faster tire in the rear, but I may want to enter another race or two again this year with lots of climbing. While that's uncertain, I'd like to find a tire combo that won't punish me on the climbs in case I do race. There is some intermediate drift with Ardents, but I doesn't bother me too much. If tires won't so damn expensive these days, I'd be experimenting more.


----------



## White Bear (Jun 12, 2013)

GMM said:


> White Bear, I'm actually running tubeless with WTB I23 rims.


While I'm not racing, and not leaning heavily into turns, I have yet to burp at 22 psi. in normal use. That said, I did burp once a year ago when I hadn't checked air pressure and the level of Stan's (dried out), so I don't know if 2 psi or Stan's level would have made any difference. Also, that was on my old set of Stan's Flow rims. I'm now on Enve AM rims which are a bit wider. I am really curious what 25 psi would be like for you.
BTW, since you're racing, you really should try the Specialized S-Works Fast Track Specialized Bicycle Components in 2.20. You'll love that tire.


----------



## GMM (Mar 2, 2004)

I'm not really a "racer," but do enjoy entering a few races, more so for the race course than the competition. Funny you mention the Fast Track as I just threw one on my old 26" bike. Years ago I used to ride a WTB Nano and that thing felt like it added 2 mph to my speed.


----------



## GMM (Mar 2, 2004)

Just wanted to provide an update on this tire. I dropped the psi to 25 from 30, and it does indeed grip better and corners very solidly. However, I would say that it still does slip out more on powdery dirt and gravel when applying power than a tire with taller center nobs. That shouldn't be a big surprise, but it is worth noting to anyone who might think otherwise. The flip side is now that I finally got over a nagging cold and can push a bit more, I am appreciating the rolling resistance of this tire even more. I think this would be a very good tire for endurance type events, and if I get the courage to enter one, I will be using the Ardent Race. On the other hand, for our dry and loose summer conditions, I will probably put on something with a bit more grip, maybe the Specialized Captain.


----------



## weedkilla1 (Jan 1, 2009)

With some more time on this tyre I can safely say my original enthusiasm hasnt waned. It really is a special blend of weight, rolling resistance and grip. The side knobs provide a much more predictable cornering bite than the oe ardent, the low knob height reduces knob squirm, it rolls really well. That same low knob height does reduce its effectiveness in loose situations, especially gravel. It is a trade off I can accept for all the other good attributes, but this may not apply for all people on all terrain types.
It is similar in loose situations to a crossmark or 2.2 ikon, and better in many others. 
Im happy using it as a front tyre, a pair, or as a rear with a hr2 on the front. 

It is a better tyre on the front with a tube than it is tubeless, but the difference is slight. But that applies to almost all single walled tyres, particularly if you cant remember to ride a trail bike more gently than a dh bike


----------



## Gumbi4Prez (Jan 2, 2014)

Are these available in the states? Anyone got a lead? Have'nt seen them for sale. Thanks


----------



## Learux (Jun 4, 2012)

Would like to know this as well.


----------



## Learux (Jun 4, 2012)

Bike bling has them in stock now. Not cheap, guess on par with other fancy tires.

Maxxis Ardent Race K tire, 29 x 2.25" 3C/EXO/TR from BikeBling.com


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Is the weight on the exo much higher?


----------



## Space Ranger (Jan 17, 2011)

Learux said:


> Bike bling has them in stock now. Not cheap, guess on par with other fancy tires.
> 
> Maxxis Ardent Race K tire, 29 x 2.25" 3C/EXO/TR from BikeBling.com


I called them before ordering those - they're not in stock.


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

Space Ranger said:


> I called them before ordering those - they're not in stock.


Bike bling likes to do that. Universal still doesn't have them listed, so it's likely there aren't any in the country yet.


----------



## Orl1exm (Oct 22, 2011)

Just saw them on e-Bay. $71.25 shipped.
Maxxis Ardent Race K Tire 29 x 2 2" 3c TR Folding Maxx Speed Tubeless Ready MTB | eBay


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

I am running double IKONs for XC racing and was interested if anyone had any feedback on how Ardent Race stacks up as a front tire? Specifically looking to see how it handle over dusty hardpack and gravel type situations.


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

I just bought one from bike bling. I'll report back my findings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

Just mounted mine up in the rear. IKON 2.2 up front. Attached a side by side shot for comparison. I traditionally run Double IKON 2.2s. Upcoming XC race is loose trail conditions w/ alot of climbing. Reviews say this is where you see the difference vs. the IKON. We shall see.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Nice! 

Posted via mobile


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Lefty2341 said:


> Just mounted mine up in the rear. IKON 2.2 up front. Attached a side by side shot for comparison. I traditionally run Double IKON 2.2s. Upcoming XC race is loose trail conditions w/ alot of climbing. Reviews say this is where you see the difference vs. the IKON. We shall see.


Just an FYI; the ultimate cornering grip of the Ardent Race should be better than the Ikon 2.2. So be cautious while pushing it in the corners.


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

You are saying don't expect to push the corners harder while still running an IKON up front?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Lefty2341 said:


> You are saying don't expect to push the corners harder while still running an IKON up front?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There's a chance the front tire will break free before the front, which is a situation that's hard to recover from. With Ikon 2.2's front and rear, you'd normally have the rear break free first, or enter into a controlled two wheel drift.


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

Thanks for pointing that out. My intent was to have it help with wheel slip on loose climbs, not so much on the improved cornering ability. I know the limit of the IKON front well and try not to push it in loose conditions. If I need it for that I'll end up putting it up front. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Wow that looks quite a bit smaller than the ikon...


----------



## soltis007 (Jun 17, 2008)

I just bought my ikon 2.2 for the rear and ardent race for the fron. II'll post pics when I get them out on. I'm taking off specialized fast trak 2.2 sworks.

On MN trails around the twin cities they were fine when dry but garbage in the least bit of moisture.


----------



## Da Bikoholic (Mar 18, 2004)

*Rolling resistance*



bholwell said:


> Just an FYI; the ultimate cornering grip of the Ardent Race should be better than the Ikon 2.2. So be cautious while pushing it in the corners.


@bholwell: Can you comment on the rolling resistance between Ikon, ardent race and crossmark. How would you rank them and what % difference (approximately of course)

How much does the Exo protection affect the rolling resistance?

Would the ardent race have higher cornering grip then crossmark?

Thanks


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Da Bikoholic said:


> @bholwell: Can you comment on the rolling resistance between Ikon, ardent race and crossmark. How would you rank them and what % difference (approximately of course)
> 
> How much does the Exo protection affect the rolling resistance?
> 
> ...


I don't have rolling resistance data, so I can't say with 100% certainty. But based on my knowledge of the tires' construction and from my experience, I think all three tires are very close to each other in rolling resistance. On asphalt, the Crossmark might have the lowest, but on the trail I think the Ikon is the lowest, with the CrossMark only slightly higher, and the Ardent Race maybe only slightly higher than the CM.

The Exo-protection fabric on the sidewall has a very minimal effect on rolling resistance. This should not play a role in your decision on whether to choose a tire with Exo-Protection or not.

And yes, the Ardent Race will have higher cornering grip than both the Ikon and Crossmark.


----------



## Da Bikoholic (Mar 18, 2004)

Great reply..exactly what I wanted to know. Looks like the ardent race will be my next trail tires.

Minion dhf vs dhr 2 vs high roller 2: which one has the least rolling resistance?

Minion dhf ust: I am curently riding these because they were lighter due to the kevlar bead vs wire. I only recently noticed that the casing is only 27tpi vs 60 for regular wire bead. Am i compromising rolling resistance because of the casing? I dont even run them tubeless and they are getting worned out. Trying to plan my next move and I am always looking for a good balance of grip vs RR

Cheers


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Da Bikoholic said:


> Great reply..exactly what I wanted to know. Looks like the ardent race will be my next trail tires.
> 
> Minion dhf vs dhr 2 vs high roller 2: which one has the least rolling resistance?
> 
> ...


I'd probably rank them DHF, High Roller 2, DHR 2, in ascending order of rolling resistance (assuming similar compound and construction). But you should really choose the tread pattern that best suits your terrain.

And yes, the heavier UST construction is going to have a little more rolling resistance. I'd choose the tubeless ready Exo-Protection version the next time around (if we're talking trail tires).


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

Gentlemen,

This evening was my first ride with the Ardent Race EXO mounted on the rear. IKON 2.2 on the front. I gotta say, this is my new rear tire. I have been running Double IKONs for almost 9 months and I've always loved the way they performed. But the Ardent Race in the rear takes traction to another level. I saw no perceptible difference in rolling resistance vs. an IKON. Where you see the huge gains are in traction on loose/gravely surfaces and roots. I took off from the start with the intent of pushing the tire intentionally to its limits.....I.E. standing on climbs when I shouldn't be, mashing on breaks to try to break its grip, etc. It just plain hooks up great. Don't get me wrong, you will break traction on the steepest/loosest climbs, but not near as easily as the IKON. Where I loved it most was one finger breaking in the corners and extremely steep, rocky descents. I always worried about the IKON breaking in sandy/dirty corners and how much 1 finger breaking I could get away with before it started to slip. There is none of that with the AR. It just holds. When I used to bomb loose descents I would brake with both front and rear before sharp corners at the end. Now its rear brake only and I have total confidence its not going anywhere if I take the corner at the bottom of descent with speed.

Bholwell had a very good point. On fast corners the IKON is going to break before the AR. If your not running a tire with tall side knobs on the front then your front will break first and you will struggle to recover. The next test will be to put it on front and see how it performs. I'm probably going to buy another AR though because I like it on the rear too much.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Lefty2341 said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> This evening was my first ride with the Ardent Race EXO mounted on the rear...


I'm glad you like it.


----------



## TedS123 (Dec 2, 2009)

bholwell said:


> I don't have rolling resistance data, so I can't say with 100% certainty. But based on my knowledge of the tires' construction and from my experience, I think all three tires are very close to each other in rolling resistance. On asphalt, the Crossmark might have the lowest, but on the trail I think the Ikon is the lowest, with the CrossMark only slightly higher, and the Ardent Race maybe only slightly higher than the CM.
> 
> The Exo-protection fabric on the sidewall has a very minimal effect on rolling resistance. This should not play a role in your decision on whether to choose a tire with Exo-Protection or not.
> 
> And yes, the Ardent Race will have higher cornering grip than both the Ikon and Crossmark.


I'd be curious to know how you think the Ikon 2.35 compares to the Ardent Race as a front tire, especially in terms of cornering grip.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

Ohh, good idea. An IKON 2.35 front, Ardent Race rear could be a potent combo. 

I personally favor big front grip, especially for racing where I'll be pushing through corners tired, so I use a Ardent 2.25 or 2.4 on the front (depends on terrain) and the Ardent race in the rear. Bryan has said in the past though that the IKON 2.35 in the rear offers more grip than the Ardent 2.25 with less rolling resistance, so maybe the choice for the front should be IKON 2.35 or Ardent 2.4 depending on how much grip you need. 

-Tom


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

And to derail slighty, Bryan, are you saying that the DHF has LESS rolling resistance than a High Roller 2? I felt that the DHF rolled like a bag of doorknobs compared to the Ardent 2.4 :lol: What did I get myself into ordering a High Roller 2 for the front of the big rig?


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

What kind of real world mounted up widths are you guys getting with the Ardent Race are they true to size? 

I've been searching for a new rear tire for my Nimble 9 SS for a while now and but have yet to find exactly what I'm looking for. I ran a Fast Trak Control 2.2 most of this past fall and winter, great rolling tire but just not aggressive to feel comfortable when being pushed on the loose, rocky trails we have out here. Tried a RaRa 2.35, looked good on paper, rolled nicely, great volume... only got about 4 rides out of it before the knobs started disappearing. :madman: I'm now trying out an Conty X-King Protection 2.2. Again looked good, love the grip and it still rolls pretty well but damn does it run small... measured a hair over 2.0 @ 30 psi when I mounted it up. Got to it barely stretch out to 2.1 after sitting overnight @ 60 psi, but I've had more rim strikes in the past 2 weeks with it @ 25-26 psi than I have with any of the other tires in the past 8 months, and need to make a change before I kill a rim. Higher pressure isn't really an option because the thing feels like crap @ 30 psi. 

The Ardent Race caught my eyes because it looks like a very promising tread pattern with a decent rolling center block but big enough intermediate and side knobs to keep it planted when getting a little rowdy, but I'm a little concerned about the size. I'm also looking at the X-King 2.4 which is pretty close weight wise as the Ardent Race EXO but might just be a little overkill.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

I mounted up a 2.25 Ardent Race Exo to my CB Cobalt 11's about 4 weeks ago. 

I was already a huge Ardent fan....run a 2.4 F/2.25 R on my Tallboy.

Really diggin' the Ardent Race....I get just enough drift until I get really aggressive and it just hooks up. Running it up front. 

Found that I have to run 18-22 psi or it feels rock hard....I am 180 lbs.

Not sure I would run it on the rear...seems like it might wear out kinda quick.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

TedS123 said:


> I'd be curious to know how you think the Ikon 2.35 compares to the Ardent Race as a front tire, especially in terms of cornering grip.
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


The Ikon 2.35 likely has a little better cornering grip. If I remember correctly, the shoulder knobs of the Ikon 2.35 are just a little taller and spaced a little further apart. You might be able to run a little lower pressure in the larger Ikon 2.35 if your rim allows, and that'll keep the front end planted a little better.


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

mtnbikej said:


> Found that I have to run 18-22 psi or it feels rock hard....I am 180 lbs.


Same here. It is very stiff

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

bholwell said:


> The Ikon 2.35 likely has a little better cornering grip. If I remember correctly, the shoulder knobs of the Ikon 2.35 are just a little taller and spaced a little further apart. You might be able to run a little lower pressure in the larger Ikon 2.35 if your rim allows, and that'll keep the front end planted a little better.


I thought I read that if you ran IKON 2.35 at less than 30 psi you would have issues. Probably the bikeradar review.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

trhoppe said:


> And to derail slighty, Bryan, are you saying that the DHF has LESS rolling resistance than a High Roller 2? I felt that the DHF rolled like a bag of doorknobs compared to the Ardent 2.4 :lol: What did I get myself into ordering a High Roller 2 for the front of the big rig?


Maybe. There probably won't be a noticeable difference between the two tires on the front wheel, with regards to rolling resistance. But I prefer the versatility of the High Roller 2 on the front. It does well in dry, it punches through the leaves in the fall, and if it has rained 24 hours straight the day before, it'll do well on the muddy trails of Pisgah.

Besides, I'm sure your riding buddies will be glad you have a little extra RR on the front of your rig. You'll likely still be waiting on them at the top of the climbs.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Lefty2341 said:


> I thought I read that if you ran IKON 2.35 at less than 30 psi you would have issues. Probably the bikeradar review.


Don't believe everything you read. Especially if you read it on bikeradar. How low you can go on inflation pressure before the tire starts to roll will depend on your rim width, weight, and how aggressive you are in the corners. And even if you run the tire at the same pressure as a smaller 2.1 tire, there's more air volume in the tire. This means that when you hit a rock, root, etc. and the tire deflects, the resultant force will be more linear than with a smaller tire (similar to a shock with a larger air can.) So the tire will feel (and act) more compliant.


----------



## ritchief (Sep 23, 2010)

In terms of straight line rolling resistance, which one is better the Ikon or Race ???

The reason for asking is that this summer I am doing a 180 mile off road ride so need the best rolling resistance tyre and these 2 are on my trial list.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Lefty2341 said:


> I thought I read that if you ran IKON 2.35 at less than 30 psi you would have issues. Probably the bikeradar review.


Poor advice, whoever gave it.

I don't think I've run a tire as high as 30 psi for years now. The Ikon 2.35 performs great at pressures under 30. No issues...


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

ritchief said:


> In terms of straight line rolling resistance, which one is better the Ikon or Race ???
> 
> The reason for asking is that this summer I am doing a 180 mile off road ride so need the best rolling resistance tyre and these 2 are on my trial list.


Do you mean the Ikon 2.35 or Ikon 2.2? The Ikon 2.2 has lower rolling resistance. Then I would think that the Ardent Race would have slightly lower rolling resistance than the Ikon 2.35, but the difference is likely miniscule. And on really rocky, rooty terrain, the Ikon 2.35 might have the advantage.


----------



## TedS123 (Dec 2, 2009)

BruceBrown said:


> Poor advice, whoever gave it.
> 
> I don't think I've run a tire as high as 30 psi for years now. The Ikon 2.35 performs great at pressures under 30. No issues...


I'm now running 2.35 Ikons front and rear on my 29 HT: ~20 psi front, ~20-22 psi rear. No problems...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

TedS123 said:


> I'm now running 2.35 Ikons front and rear on my 29 HT: ~20 psi front, ~20-22 psi rear. No problems...
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


What is the inner width of your rims? I'm running a 2.35 on arch ex's and I'm slightly concerned with how easy they were to get on the rim...they were pretty loose


----------



## TedS123 (Dec 2, 2009)

8iking VIIking said:


> What is the inner width of your rims? I'm running a 2.35 on arch ex's and I'm slightly concerned with how easy they were to get on the rim...they were pretty loose


Currently running a Bontrager Duster (24 mm inner width) in the front - works great tubeless with the TLR strip. On the rear I have a Flow (non-EX) with 22.6 mm inner width - this also works fine tubeless. I'm also getting a set of LB hookless carbon rims that these tires will be moved to once built up.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## GrooveNinja (Jun 28, 2004)

If a 2.35 650b Ardent Race exo ever becomes available it will probably be my new dry conditions enduro race tire (fingers crossed). Not sure I can ride clean and fast enough to get away with a 2.2 ardent race exo. 

For years the double-ply 2.35 Larsen TT has been hard to top for a rear enduro race tire, but sadly isn't available in 650b.


----------



## trhoppe (Sep 3, 2008)

On Bryan's recommendation I'm using the IKON 2.35 as my rear enduro tire. Lot of guys (Jared Graves/etc) used that tire successfully last year as well. HR2 2.3 front, IKON 2.35 rear. If **** gets too serious or wet, then throw another HR2 2.3 on the rear. 

-Tom


----------



## Gumbi4Prez (Jan 2, 2014)

Still on the fence with with and volume as well. My Ikon 2.2 measured 2.03"ish on a 19 width rim. Smaller than both the Crossmark and Ignitor that are 2.1 tires.

Anyone got any measurements on the Ardent race? I really don't want to purchase one for the front. Only to be disappointed in the size.


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

I will be moving the AR to front with new IKON 2.2 in back for testing on some loose/techy trail riding on Thursday. Will report back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lefty2341 (Aug 12, 2013)

Took the bike our yesterday for testing w/ AR front and IKON rear. My main concern going in to the ride was knob float when transitioning from center knobs to the taller sides knobs on the AR. Those concerns were quickly quelled. The tire is extremely confident in corners, even at less aggressive lean angles. No noticeable rolling resistance difference vs. IKON. The side walls on the EXO version are not as supple as the IKON and that is noticeable over the bumps. I am 150 lb. rider and running 20 PSI up front (on set of Crests). Not sure how much lower I can go w/o running risk of burp flats. Overall, this will be my front tire on more techy singletrack. Will stick with IKON front on flat/hardpack race courses.


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

Gumbi4Prez said:


> Anyone got any measurements on the Ardent race? I really don't want to purchase one for the front. Only to be disappointed in the size.


I'll have one here on Wednesday so I'll know firsthand. I've heard from a local guy that they may run a little bit big so I decided to go ahead and try one out. As long as it's close to 2.2 or better yet a little bigger it should have the volume I'm looking for.


----------



## Vega77 (May 30, 2006)

bholwell said:


> I don't have rolling resistance data, so I can't say with 100% certainty. But based on my knowledge of the tires' construction and from my experience, I think all three tires are very close to each other in rolling resistance. On asphalt, the Crossmark might have the lowest, but on the trail I think the Ikon is the lowest, with the CrossMark only slightly higher, and the Ardent Race maybe only slightly higher than the CM.
> 
> The Exo-protection fabric on the sidewall has a very minimal effect on rolling resistance. This should not play a role in your decision on whether to choose a tire with Exo-Protection or not.
> 
> And yes, the Ardent Race will have higher cornering grip than both the Ikon and Crossmark.


Bholwell,
How does the ardent race 2.2 exo compare to an Ikon 2.35 exo as a rear trail tire? I'm running and Ardent 2.4 up front in CO front range conditions (mix of rocky, loose, some occasional hardpack, but really no wet conditions).


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Vega77 said:


> Bholwell,
> How does the ardent race 2.2 exo compare to an Ikon 2.35 exo as a rear trail tire? I'm running and Ardent 2.4 up front in CO front range conditions (mix of rocky, loose, some occasional hardpack, but really no wet conditions).


I sent a PM. But I really prefer the Ikon 2.35 on the rear of a trail bike. The larger volume and more open tread pattern are pluses, IMO.


----------



## Learux (Jun 4, 2012)

So what is the verdict for these as a front tire in super dry, loose over hard socal.

just took a nasty fall on my Maxxis Aspen tires. Do these provide more grip in corners. 

The Aspen washed out without any warning.

I am using kenda slant 6 as a rear tire.


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

Vega77 said:


> Bholwell,
> How does the ardent race 2.2 exo compare to an Ikon 2.35 exo as a rear trail tire? I'm running and Ardent 2.4 up front in CO front range conditions (mix of rocky, loose, some occasional hardpack, but really no wet conditions).


Might be a little late to the party here, I'm up in Ft. Collins and have been running a Arent Race 29x2.2 EXO on the back of my Nimble 9 for about 3 weeks or so.

I mostly ride northern front range type of stuff, Lyons north up to Curt Gowdy for the most part with a pretty varied mix from smooth XC type hardpack to rocky loose techy stuff. The AR replaced a Conti X-King 2.2 that I tried out on the recommendation from a wrench at the LBS which replaced a Spec FastTrak 2.3 that I ran for all of last fall and the winter but had been thoroughly worn out, I like the FastTrak but wanted something that was just a little more aggressive for the loose stuff. The X-King turned out to be a nice rolling tire with a good amount of grip but just didn't have enough volume, even at higher pressures I was still getting more rime strikes than I was comfortable with and I needed to find something else before killing a rim.

On paper the AR looked the part...

My take on the Ardent Race. Volume is good and the sizing is as advertised, mine measured a bit over 2.15 after mounting them up and stretched out and ended up being very close to 2.2 after a couple of days. On hard-pack and the very light loose stuff it's pretty dang good, it rolls fast and I can push it hard without feeling like it's going to do anything weird or unexpected, I notice the weight increase over the X-King Protection 2.2 that it replaced a bit when accelerating but once at speed I can't tell a difference. On loose over hard it feels grippy and planted but it does have a little bit of mid lean vagueness which can be a little unsettling if you are pushing it hard. On bare exposed rock things get a bit more unpredictable. On smooth rock the grip is there but on more textured stuff like the rock garden at Hall Ranch things are a different story... add a little bit of moisture to the equation and forget about it. I was spinning out and struggling on sections that I have cleared with ease on other set-ups in similar or worse conditions.

I can't say if it is the tread pattern or compound or the size but I've had other Maxxis tires in the past that felt really good but the Ardent Race just doesn't quite do it for me...If you're used to a low volume tire with a small less aggressive tread pattern I could see how the AR might seem pretty dam nice. I could also see a AR front/Ikon rear combo being a pretty decent combo for a race on a course that wasn't too loose, but I tend to favor a higher volume tire though, so I should have known. :thumbsup:


----------



## Simplemind (Jul 17, 2006)

Dr Wankel said:


> I tend to favor a higher volume tire tough, so I should have known. :thumbsup:


Thanks for the great assessment! I have found there are so many variables with tire choice, you just have to buy and ride.

I am assuming that you are tubeless, so what pressure are you riding in the rock gardens?

Also, where are you going from here? I road the S-Works Fast Trak 2.20 all last summer on the western slope with great results, it was when I got back to central Texas the sidewalls were just a bit too fragile. If that tire had a tougher sidewall, I be back on it.


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

Simplemind said:


> Thanks for the great assessment! I have found there are so many variables with tire choice, you just have to buy and ride.
> 
> I am assuming that you are tubeless, so what pressure are you riding in the rock gardens?
> 
> Also, where are you going from here? I road the S-Works Fast Trak 2.20 all last summer on the western slope with great results, it was when I got back to central Texas the sidewalls were just a bit too fragile. If that tire had a tougher sidewall, I be back on it.


Yeah they are set-up tubeless, I'm about 175lbs geared up and I have been running it at 24-25 psi, any lower and I start getting rim strikes. I was previously running the FastTrak Control 2.2 and had no issues with the sidewalls, granted they are not as light as the S-Works but seem to hold up just fine for me.

I think the next tire I'm going to try is going to be a 2.4 X-King Protection, if they are sized consistently small like the my last X-King was I'm guessing it will end up 2.2-2.25" width range and hopefully give me the kind of volume that I'm looking for.


----------



## Simplemind (Jul 17, 2006)

Ouch, the X-Kings are 760 grams...that's in the Hans Dampf range. I'm sure they'll have all the traction you could ask for, they give up 200 grams to the S-Works. We're close to the same weight, maybe I'm 10 lbs heavier loaded, but I generally run about 22-23 rear. If i go higher I start losing traction. I'll still look into these though. Thanks.


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

Simplemind said:


> Ouch, the X-Kings are 760 grams...that's in the Hans Dampf range. I'm sure they'll have all the traction you could ask for, they give up 200 grams to the S-Works. We're close to the same weight, maybe I'm 10 lbs heavier loaded, but I generally run about 22-23 rear. If i go higher I start losing traction. I'll still look into these though. Thanks.


True they are not the lightest tire out there but with the Ardent Race EXO 2.2 being 720g the difference shouldn't be that bad. Conti also has a 2.4 X-King in the RaceSport casing that is only listed at 650g and is also in the black chili compound. I might try one out but I'm a little bit leery of running it as an everyday tire out here with all of our sharp rocks.


----------



## Simplemind (Jul 17, 2006)

Dr Wankel said:


> True they are not the lightest tire out there but with the Ardent Race EXO 2.2 being 720g the difference shouldn't be that bad. Conti also has a 2.4 X-King in the RaceSport casing that is only listed at 650g and is also in the black chili compound. I might try one out but I'm a little bit leery of running it as an everyday tire out here with all of our sharp rocks.


Right Dr., re the weight difference. I forgot that the AR 2.2 was that heavy. I think of "race" tires being less than 600 gms., but prolly big difference between XC "race", and All Mtn. "race" weights.

The Mountain King II (29x2.4 ProTection) is 827 grams
The Mountain King II (29x2.2 ProTection) is 706 grams
The Race King 2.2 (2.125" casing ProTection ) is 604 grams

All of these are RTR tubeless ready and made in Germany. I'm liking the looks of the RK as a rear @ 600 gms.


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

Yeah I still have the X-King 2.2 @ 655g that I'm going to hang onto for racing, but for an everyday tire I'm hoping the 2.4 will do the trick. The mountain King is a good bit heavier than the X-King is though.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Bumping this. I ordered an ardent race 3c 2.2 and ikon 3c 2.2 for my f29 so I'm hoping for more info, but if not I'll report back 

Posted via mobile


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Learux said:


> So what is the verdict for these as a front tire in super dry, loose over hard socal.
> 
> just took a nasty fall on my Maxxis Aspen tires. Do these provide more grip in corners.
> 
> ...


I have been running the Ardent Race Exo on the front of my SS here in the OC since the beginning of March.

So far I have been really happy with them. Ran them at VQ.

I have to run them lower in pressure than other tires, but they have a great feel.

You cannot compare them to the Aspens.....2 completely different types of tires.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

I ordered the non exo (already adding half a lb to the bike, don't want any more weight and exo is not necessary where I ride ) 

Posted via mobile


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

I've been running the ardent race for a little while when I find time in between being a roadie so not a ton of testing but enough to get a feel for the tire. I really like the ardent race. I have it on the rear of my trail wheels, blunt 35's, with a ardent 2.4 up front and it was a very good combo for fast descending in somewhat aggressive XC riding (Brown County road trip).

For racing I'm going to be running aspen rear and ardent race front on blunt rims. I used aspen front and rear a few weeks ago and don't like the aspen up front at all. I may even go to ardent race front and rear as being a dirt roadie I like to pedal through corners so extra grip in the rear has been nicer for me. It still rolls quite fast. I have found that the aspen seems to grip really well on climbs but it brakes like crap and leaves a bit to be desired for cornering. Running it reverse on the front, like we do for chevron treads in CX, might change things up for braking but the ardent race seems nicer all-around for cornering.

Have a new 27.5" XC race bike on the way (other is a FS 29er) and I plan to run ardent race front or rear with ikon 2.35 front or 2.2 rear. I ordered 1 of each so I can do some moving around for the conditions though since I'll be running tubeless and because I'm lazy I'll probably find what feels good and just stick with it since trading tires on race day with tubeless is a hassle.


----------



## fr0sty (Feb 14, 2006)

I just mounted an Ardent Race on the rear of my 650b hardtail (sorry, I know this is 29er forum but still). Preliminary testing suggests that this might be the perfect rear tire for trail riding, rolls very quickly and grip seems fine so far. I'll update this as I put more miles on the tire.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

I'll be using it as a front tire on my xc hard tail paired up with an ikon out back. I use an ikon as a rear on my trail bike with a regular ardent up front (both exo) and I'm trying to get close to that feeling. 

Posted via mobile


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

I bet an AR in 2.35 would just kill it as a front tire. The greater width would open the tread up a bit, and it wouldn't have the vagueness in the transitions, or just the sluggish rolling resistance that plagues the Ardent 2.4. Would mate well with an Ikon 2.35 in the rear for fast aggressive trail/AM use, if you like going fast on the ups as much as on the downs. Not a park/DH combo obviously...


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

TwoNin9r said:


> I'll be using it as a front tire on my xc hard tail paired up with an ikon out back. I use an ikon as a rear on my trail bike with a regular ardent up front (both exo) and I'm trying to get close to that feeling.
> 
> Posted via mobile


This is the exact combo I'm running on my new race bike. I've had it out the last 2 days, since I received it 2 days ago, and the tires hook up nice tubeless and roll quite well. I'm running them on velocity blunt rims for the extra rim width as well. I have an ikon 2.35 in case things get a little stickier or wet, the ardent race has a tighter tread patter which I think allows more consistent traction but I'm pretty sure it'll pack up quick in the wet clay some of the trails around here have. It's a pretty fast setup. The ardent race is tons faster than the regular ardent or at least the 2.4 which I use for heavier duty riding on my FS.


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

Gumbi4Prez said:


> Still on the fence with with and volume as well. My Ikon 2.2 measured 2.03"ish on a 19 width rim. Smaller than both the Crossmark and Ignitor that are 2.1 tires.
> 
> Anyone got any measurements on the Ardent race? I really don't want to purchase one for the front. Only to be disappointed in the size.


I'd really appreciate it if someone could provide the casing width (and ideally height).

[edit] the bead-to-bead measurement would be ok as an alternative.

Thanks. :thumbsup:


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Ive got one and a caliper. On my way to work now but will try to remember when I get home


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Mine are on arch ex so hopefully 2 perspectives by the end of the day


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

I will write a sticky note to measure as well, I have them mounted on velocity blunts so a little wider rim than Gumbi. It looks reasonably wide when I get off my road bike and ride the mtb the next day.


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

Sorry, double post


----------



## peteer01 (Apr 26, 2005)

Learux said:


> So what is the verdict for these as a front tire in super dry, loose over hard socal.
> 
> just took a nasty fall on my Maxxis Aspen tires. Do these provide more grip in corners.
> 
> ...


I'm not suggesting the normal Ardent would be the tire for you, but I was riding with Aspen 2.1s in the front and back of my XC bike last year. Exactly what you just described happened to me in layer-of-damp-leaves upstate New York.

I purchased a TR 2.25 Ardent on the recommendation of someone who'd ridden in upstate NY for most of his life. Fantastic front tire, in my opinion, for having enough grip in corners to not wash out once since then.

For my trail bike I just built, I went 2.4 Ardent in the front, and 2.25 in the back. Since they're not universally loved, I'm sure there's all kinds of terrain, trails and conditions they're not well suited for, but for the riding I do in upstate NY, I think it's a fantastic front wheel on both my bikes. :thumbsup:


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

Thanks Bikerector and TwoNin9r. Looking forward to it!


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Casing 54.25mm and exactly the same at the knobs. Measured at around 20psi on arch ex


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

PuddleDuck said:


> Thanks Bikerector and TwoNin9r. Looking forward to it!


Late night on the trails yesterday... postponed the measuring til tonight.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Bikerector said:


> Late night on the trails yesterday... postponed the measuring til tonight.


Acceptable excuse I presume


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

27.5" on velocity blunt (tubeless)
54mm casing
55mm at widest point of tread
50mm height (pretty rough estimate on height measurements).

29" on blunt (tubeless
55mm casing
54mm tread
51mm height

29" on blunt 35 (tubed)
55mm casing
53.5mm tread
50mm height

I used analog calipers so I may need a little wiggle room on there but should be within a mm easily enough. Pumped them all to 25psi. No idea if tubed or tubeless matters, but included that if it does.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Bikerector said:


> 27.5" on velocity blunt (tubeless)
> 54mm casing
> 55mm at widest point of tread
> 50mm height (pretty rough estimate on height measurements).
> ...


i'm glad to see someone running a 2.25 on a Blunt 35. i just ordered a Geax Goma 2.25 and a set of P53s but some internet wisdom says that the 35mm rim on a 2.25 tire will "close" up the knobs a bit.


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

Many thanks TNr and Br.

That casing width is what I was hoping for - MUCH wider than an Ikon 2.2.

An Ikon 2.35 is 57/53, an Ardent 2.35 is 55/51 (both 650b on 23mm internal diam LB rims). My 29er Ikon 2.2's are 51mm wide on 21mm ID Arch's.

Now, given that the 650b 2.2 Ardent Race EXO is very close in weight to the 2.35 Ikon, I need to decide if a lighter non-EXO Ardent Race will be tough enough as a rear tyre (both should have enough grip).


----------



## blaklabl (Mar 14, 2011)

What about ikon 2.35 F and Ardent Race R on a HT 29"ER in desert (AZ) hardpack conditions? Need new tires and was considering Ikons front and rear until I came across the AR. Just concerned volume on the rear will be significantly smaller and skinnier. And just odd. But since I can't see them aired up on my Arch EX rims first, I'll hope someone else has tried the combo already. Thanks!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

Haven't tried the combo, but have run the Ikon 2.35 up front and 2.2 down back with no problem (on a dually). 

The Ikon 2.2 has the same measurements as the Ardent Race (Ikon 2.2 650 is bigger than Ikon 2.2 29er) at ~55mm wide and 50mm high. That's a reasonable volume, high even. Only you can tell if it's too small and skinny for you.

The 2.35 is HUGE though, 58mm wide and 53mm high. If you're concerned, then run 2.35 Ikons front and rear. The 2.35 Ikon only weighs a few grams more than the EXO Ardent Race (~700 vs ~680).

I've also run the 2.35 Ikon on the back, works well, no issues with too much rolling resistance.

I probably wont' use a 2.2 Ikon again, the casing is wider than the edge knobs, and the knobs are spread further apart than they are on the 29er version. Bad move Maxxis.


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

The ardent race is good as a front or rear. I was using it as a rear with an ardent 2.4" up front in Brown County this spring and there was tons of grip. It's on the front of my hardtail racer.

I haven't tried the 2.35" ikon though, I have it sitting in reserve. My current tire combos for racing are ikon rear and ardent race front for my 27.5" hardtail and ardent race front and rear for my endurance race bike. I'm using velocity blunts in both cases.


----------



## blaklabl (Mar 14, 2011)

PuddleDuck said:


> Haven't tried the combo, but have run the Ikon 2.35 up front and 2.2 down back with no problem (on a dually).
> 
> The Ikon 2.2 has the same measurements as the Ardent Race (Ikon 2.2 650 is bigger than Ikon 2.2 29er) at ~55mm wide and 50mm high. That's a reasonable volume, high even. Only you can tell if it's too small and skinny for you.
> 
> ...


So realistically, you're saying the AR and IKON 2.35 have about 6mm overall height difference? I am not so concerned with the width of the AR, I just don't want it to be too noticeably "shorter" overall. Thanks for the input. Maybe bhowell has something to offer.


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

6mm at most. Others in this thread have measured the height of the AR at 50-51mm (it's not as easy to measure height as width). I'd double check the Ikon for you, but I don't have it mounted. I can tell you that overall (width and height) the Ikon will make the AR look small'ish. If you want visual equality, I'd run the same tire both ends.

Are your concerns visual or functional or both?


----------



## blaklabl (Mar 14, 2011)

PuddleDuck said:


> 6mm at most. Others in this thread have measured the height of the AR at 50-51mm (it's not as easy to measure height as width). I'd double check the Ikon for you, but I don't have it mounted. I can tell you that overall (width and height) the Ikon will make the AR look small'ish. If you want visual equality, I'd run the same tire both ends.
> 
> Are your concerns visual or functional or both?


Some of both.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

blaklabl said:


> Some of both


I'd definitely run the same tyre at both ends then - I sense that the visual difference wouldn't suit you.


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

Maybe not much help but here's pics of an Ikon 2.2 and ardent race 2.2, 27.5" tires. Looks like the ikon 2.2 is even a little taller, though not much.

AR









Ikon


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Woohoo!! Just pruchased (waiting on delivery) an - AR 3C EXO TR 27.5x2.2 ^^

Hope it's as good as what I've read...

Intended use as rear tyre - general trail riding... (Schwalbe HD 2.35, up front)


----------



## bosbik (Aug 29, 2011)

How does the AR compare to the ignitor in terms of grip and rolling resistance?


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

bosbik said:


> How does the AR compare to the ignitor in terms of grip and rolling resistance?


The AR will roll better but will give up a little grip. Cornering grip is similar for most conditions but when it starts getting a little softer, the ignitor will do better. IMO, the igitor's shortfall is that it's not available in many widths and carcases, at least for 29". I would like it wider personally as the 2.1" it's narrow.

The ardent race is almost squarely between the ikon and ignitor, probably similar to the crossmark. I have no experience with the crossmark but many the riders in my area like them, if they aren't tubeless guys.

The ignitor is more of a wet/loose tire where the ardent race is a decent dry day or wet hardpack tire. The AR does okay looser wet stuff but doesn't bite in as much and get a little slidey when you start to push it.


----------



## bosbik (Aug 29, 2011)

thanks..the AR isn't locally available yet which is weird..maybe I will try an ikon-rear ignitor-front combo...but seems odd to use a 2.1 tire in front and a 2.2 out back...

when the AR becomes available will definitely get one for my front


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

bosbik said:


> thanks..the AR isn't locally available yet which is weird..maybe I will try an ikon-rear ignitor-front combo...but seems odd to use a 2.1 tire in front and a 2.2 out back...
> 
> when the AR becomes available will definitely get one for my front


I've found the AR front, ikon rear to be a great racing combo for a set and forget setup. Just does well when things are dry.

Another option, that I'm considering, is the 2.35" ikon in the front with the 2.2" ikon in the rear. The wider ikon has larger cornering lugs but the same tread down the center so it should corner more like the AR but roll a little faster, plus it has a bit more volume. I do wonder if it would lose a bit of braking traction though in looser conditions like pine needles or sand covered hardpack.


----------



## bosbik (Aug 29, 2011)

Man..i envy you guys that have the AR available.
@bikerector you use that setup on a hardtail xc rig?


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

bosbik said:


> Man..i envy you guys that have the AR available.
> @bikerector you use that setup on a hardtail xc rig?


Yes.

Tires on wheels: https://i.imgur.com/nVvzwuK.jpg

Full bike: https://i.imgur.com/NzO2iJt.jpg

Bike in action (the tires are not good in this type of terrain): https://i.imgur.com/QKxkXOd.jpg

I used the AR front and rear on my FS for a 6 hr solo endurance race this year and was really happy with it. It has that extra grip you need when you start getting really tired and making mistakes at the end of the day. I'm not really an endurance race guy but just really enjoy them every now and then as a break from the shorter 1-3 hr races (I'm mostly a roadie).


----------



## bosbik (Aug 29, 2011)

Cool rig!
I am going to get those when they come out here


----------



## dreich88 (May 13, 2012)

Can anyone comment further on running Ikon 2.35 front, ardent race rear? I'm currently running Ikon 2.35 front, Ikon 2.2 rear (which is almost worn out) and thinking of trying the ardent race instead of the Ikon 2.2.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

dreich88 said:


> Can anyone comment further on running Ikon 2.35 front, ardent race rear? I'm currently running Ikon 2.35 front, Ikon 2.2 rear (which is almost worn out) and thinking of trying the ardent race instead of the Ikon 2.2.


can't comment on Ikon... but, AR is my favorite rear tyre ^^

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## seandm (Mar 18, 2004)

dreich88 said:


> Can anyone comment further on running Ikon 2.35 front, ardent race rear? I'm currently running Ikon 2.35 front, Ikon 2.2 rear (which is almost worn out) and thinking of trying the ardent race instead of the Ikon 2.2.


I have found the AR to be sketchy up front due to the perceived lack of big knobs on the sides when you lean into it. Sometimes it bites and then there are those times where it doesn't and you wish you would have used a different tire. Might be just me though, as i was running it at 26-27psi.

It does roll fast, just not as fast as the ikon 2.35.


----------



## dreich88 (May 13, 2012)

Oooooo, the Ikon 2.35 rolls faster and hooks up better than the ardent race you say? sounds like maybe I should be considering that for the rear, then.


----------



## Bikerector (Jan 24, 2014)

seandm said:


> I have found the AR to be sketchy up front due to the perceived lack of big knobs on the sides when you lean into it. Sometimes it bites and then there are those times where it doesn't and you wish you would have used a different tire. Might be just me though, as i was running it at 26-27psi.
> 
> It does roll fast, just not as fast as the ikon 2.35.


My experience has been quite different for the AR. I run psi around 23-24 for a 27.5" tire and I weigh 220 lbs. Given, that psi is with my pump.

Good to know about the ikon 2.35, I bought one but haven't mounted it yet as I've been really liking the AR front, Ikon 2.2 rear. Ikon is getting worn and I'm thinking I might try the new tread lite rear and the 2.35 ikon up front for some of the more hardpack races around my area (most of them).


----------



## seandm (Mar 18, 2004)

I am running ikon 2.35 front and ikon 2.2 rear right now, but have run ardent 2.2 and ardent race on the front as well. prefer the ikon 2.35 by a smidge over the ardent 2.2 only because of perceived rolling resistance. Ran the ardent race on the rear and that easily hooks up better than the ikon 2.2, but it felt like i was pulling a wagon.


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

dreich88 said:


> Oooooo, the Ikon 2.35 rolls faster and hooks up better than the ardent race you say? sounds like maybe I should be considering that for the rear, then.


That has been my experience. I've run them both on the rear and the Ikon definitely rolls better and provides a smoother ride than the AR does.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Anyone else care to comment on the ardent race vs ikon 2.35 on the FRONT? I've been running the big ikon on the front for a while now, but have an AR on standby for when the big ikon dies


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

8iking VIIking said:


> Anyone else care to comment on the ardent race vs ikon 2.35 on the FRONT? I've been running the big ikon on the front for a while now, but have an AR on standby for when the big ikon dies


I got a few rides in this past weekend with the AR up front paired with a Spec FastTrak 2.2 out back and thought it was a pretty good combo. I wanted to try out a lighter, faster rolling combo than the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 that I normally run, for an upcoming race and it did well. This combo obviously had a bit less grip overall and didn't feel quite as confident when leaned for over, but it was still very predictable and had good balance front to rear. I ran the AR at 24-25 psi and it didn't give off any feelings that it was starting to roll or fold over, so I'll probably try it at 21-22 psi and see if it gains any grip. I would think the AR paired with a Ikon 2.2 or something similar would make for a good combo in most conditions except something very loose.


----------



## seandm (Mar 18, 2004)

Dr Wankel said:


> I got a few rides in this past weekend with the AR up front paired with a Spec FastTrak 2.2 out back and thought it was a pretty good combo. I wanted to try out a lighter, faster rolling combo than the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 that I normally run, for an upcoming race and it did well. This combo obviously had a bit less grip overall and didn't feel quite as confident when leaned for over, but it was still very predictable and had good balance front to rear. I ran the AR at 24-25 psi and it didn't give off any feelings that it was starting to roll or fold over, so I'll probably try it at 21-22 psi and see if it gains any grip. I would think the AR paired with a Ikon 2.2 or something similar would make for a good combo in most conditions except something very loose.


I'm going to give the AR fr and ikon 2.2 rear a re-try, but at lower PSI to see how it hooks up. I would have to agree, not confident inspiring whatsoever at 28 PSI, so will try 24 PSI and see how it goes.


----------



## Jokoe (Feb 15, 2015)

Live and ride in San Diego county. Loose over hard mostly and very dry. 

Been using the Ikon 2.35 in the front for the last few months and really enjoy it. Also had an Ikon 2.2 in the back for a while and then switched to an Ardent Race 2.2. Not a big fan of the AR and feels like a liability.

Ride aggressive XC and trails. 

Opinions on running Ikon 2.35 front and rear on my Giant Anthem X 29er? 100mm suspension front and back. Want something in the back that I can lean into a little more and the taller side knobs of the 2.35 look to fit the bill?

Thanks for the help,


----------



## seandm (Mar 18, 2004)

seandm said:


> I'm going to give the AR fr and ikon 2.2 rear a re-try, but at lower PSI to see how it hooks up. I would have to agree, not confident inspiring whatsoever at 28 PSI, so will try 24 PSI and see how it goes.


Been riding the AR front and Ikon 2.2 Rear combo for the last 2 weeks and this is my go to setup now.

I run the AR around 22-20 psi and the ikon around 24-26 and it just plain hooks up out here in the desert - I'm about 180 after a night of beer.

Very fast rolling with tons of grip in the turns. A little slower on the climbs but that is probably because i am too lazy to dig down into the climbs. It is definitely not the fastest (rolling resistance) front tire but for the amount of grip you get it is definitely worth the trade off. Seems to excel in loose over hardpack.

And to think I had the AR sitting in my tire pile for months relegating it to the junk heap.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

AR is my go to rt for drier trails i.e. late spring/summer... not so great on pine needles, but surprisingly good in damp rooty sandy (slightly muddy) trails...

FYI - HRII on point 

-----------------------------------------------------------
'Yes! I'm an opinionated Mofo... Next question'.


----------



## hitechredneck (May 9, 2009)

Just picked one of these up for the rear of my bike to match the HR2 on the front. I was running the HR2 3c front and rear but felt like I was pulling a boat uphill with the HR2 on the back. I'm giving this combo a try till we get too much snow for it to grab any more. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Last post was re, my 650b o_0

I'm currently running an AR out back on my 29er also ^^ w/ Ikon 2.35 up front... a great combo!!

Got a Conti MKII 2.4 Prot. for up front also (non race day setup)...

Tried to sell DHF & DHRII to some muppet that pharked around tooo long!? So, pulled the pin...

Seriously thinking of selling 650b mule :mmm: and think I've got the right fish to boot... new riding bud, loves my 650b bike and oggles it whenever I'm riding it w/ him.

-----------------------------------------------------------
'Yes! I'm an opinionated Mofo... Next question'.


----------



## ttimpe (Nov 15, 2015)

Awesome info guys. Debating on either Ikon 2.35 front and rear or Ardent 2.4 front and ardent race 2.2 or ikon 2.35 rear. I'm a maxxis guy like there tires better than anyone else 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ttimpe (Nov 15, 2015)

MostChillin said:


> I ran a 2.35 Ikon F&R for awhile and it's a FAST combo. I tired of the front wanting to washout in loose over hard (though predictable) and lack of braking performance. I then put a 2.4 Ardent on the front and that has been my go to combo since summer.
> 
> We are experiencing a very wet fall so I need more in the rear and am going to try an Ardent F&R since they do well in the wet. I hated the 2.25 Ardent but really like the 2.4 flavor. And I value a balance in grip and rolling ability so we'll see how this combo works out.


So ardent 2.4 front and ikon 2.35 rear. I'll go that route and see how it feels. I liked my ardent 2.2 on my 26in but heard go 2.4 for the 29er

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

Sorry if this has already been addressed but can anyone compare the Ardent Race to the Ikon 2.35?

I'm contemplating entering an XC race or two this coming spring and would probably replace my rear tire for the race, and the AR and Ikon 2.35 are at the top of the list. It would be going on an Evil Following, which currently has a DHR2 front and rear. I know those aren't XC tires by any stretch, but I'm too lazy to change both front and rear just for a race or two.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Alias530 said:


> Sorry if this has already been addressed but can anyone compare the Ardent Race to the Ikon 2.35?
> 
> I'm contemplating entering an XC race or two this coming spring and would probably replace my rear tire for the race, and the AR and Ikon 2.35 are at the top of the list. It would be going on an Evil Following, which currently has a DHR2 front and rear. I know those aren't XC tires by any stretch, but I'm too lazy to change both front and rear just for a race or two.


How wide are your rims? Since it's an aggressive bike, I'm assuming fairly wide. In that case, go ikon 2.35. The only reason I'd go AR over ikon is if you're running really narrow rims.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

8iking VIIking said:


> How wide are your rims? Since it's an aggressive bike, I'm assuming fairly wide. In that case, go ikon 2.35. The only reason I'd go AR over ikon is if you're running really narrow rims.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


Roval Fattie SL's... 30mm internal


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Alias530 said:


> Roval Fattie SL's... 30mm internal


In that case, definitely the ikon. Are you running the 2.3 DHR up front?

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

8iking VIIking said:


> In that case, definitely the ikon. Are you running the 2.3 DHR up front?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


Yeah dhr2 front and rear. Perfect trail combo for me but overkill for an XC course. Too lazy to swap both tires for the race and the rear probably matters more anyway. If I end up liking racing I'll get a second dedicated wheel set and with a faster front.


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

DHR2 front and back here as well and IKON 2.35 f/r for the XC type or races. That is boots for my Kona.
Any more feedback on Ardent Race 2.2 front and Ikon 2.2 rear in 27.5 version? Thinking that it would be a good combo for a light rider for aggressive XC. Thx


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I've run HRII 2.3 up front w/ AR 2.2 out back on my 650b mule before... pretty quick rollin combo.

Jumped to a Conti MK 2.2 on my Monster Truck, just b/c we've had quite a bit of rain lately. Once our trails get damp, they take several weeks to dry out. 

-----------------------------------------------------------
#1 resolution... Ride it like I stole it!!


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

I currently have AR front and rear on my Pivot Mach 429 carbon. Good setup for XC and light trail. Used to run Schwalbe RR front and rear but ) they lose air fast and b) don't have the corner grip the ARs do.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

What is the measured width of the AR 29x2.25? Would they work well on a 28mm ID rim?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr Wankel (Oct 2, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> What is the measured width of the AR 29x2.25? Would they work well on a 28mm ID rim?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


No experience with them on a wider rim but mine measured true to size on a few different 22-23mm internal rims.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> What is the measured width of the AR 29x2.25? Would they work well on a 28mm ID rim?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Didn't know the AR came in 2.25 o_0

On my wagon wheeler on 25.5 IW ztr flow rims they measure up true to size (2.2 tyre mind you).

-----------------------------------------------------------
#1 resolution... Ride it like I stole it!!


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

They're coming out with the 2.35 width I asked for.... For 27.5 :madman:


----------



## hitechredneck (May 9, 2009)

Hopefully 29er as well 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## F29Lefty (Apr 10, 2014)

Wish they made this in a 2.3 or 2.35. I tried the ikons (or drift kings as I call them) I have zero conference on them in corners. Good for rolling in a straight line I guess. But that's no fun. I want to try AR but 2.2 is narrow.... Like the 2.4 ardent but a little heavy.


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

Please email them.


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

They already have the 2.35 for both 27.5 and 29 in Europe, chances are they are going to bring them up here:

Ardent Race | Maxxis UK


----------



## hitechredneck (May 9, 2009)

Anyone in the UK want to mail me one? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

Ardent 2.25 and Ardent Race 2.2 side-by-side, does Ardent RACE have higher rolling resistance than the Ardent? According to Maxxis - yes?


----------



## hitechredneck (May 9, 2009)

That is interesting, I never noticed the rolling difference before. I figured the "race" would have been faster. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## F29Lefty (Apr 10, 2014)

hitechredneck said:


> That is interesting, I never noticed the rolling difference before. I figured the "race" would have been faster.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


Yeah that's interesting. I wanted to try a set for an XC race next month. But now not so sure...


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

mevnet said:


> They already have the 2.35 for both 27.5 and 29 in Europe, chances are they are going to bring them up here:
> 
> Ardent Race | Maxxis UK


Thanks for the heads up.

I'd love to know how someone arrived at the decision that they should be offered in one market but not the biggest one. WTF ?

I'm trying to make it a little while longer on my current tires so I can do one of these in 2.35 on the rear and a regular ardent 2.4 on the front.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Regular Ardents in 2.3? 2.25 Ardent Races!?

What are you people smoking!!??

AR's are 2.2... and Ardent (regulars) 2.25 & 2.4 o_0

-----------------------------------------------------------
#1 resolution... Ride it like I stole it!!


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

Unless the Ardent Race is available in 2.35...from the link/ video above


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

Maxxis replied to me. 2.35 AR won't be available in the US until the fall.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

mevnet said:


> Ardent 2.25 and Ardent Race 2.2 side-by-side, does Ardent RACE have higher rolling resistance than the Ardent? According to Maxxis - yes?


I think that is relative to the category the tire is in. The ardent is faster rolling compared to the DHF, DHR, and HRII, and the Ardent Race is slower rolling than the other race tires, like the Ikon, Aspen, etc. I really don't think the AR has more rolling resistance than the Ardent. It just wouldn't make sense, both in a why bother, and just looking at them sense.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

Also, if you look at the Maxxis site, the Ardent Race are all listed as being 120TPI. Maybe he had an older one? Less flexible 60TPI casing would have more rolling resistance...

Ardent Race | Maxxis Tires USA


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

Tires are not old but from Europe where there are a lot more options. And the spec comparison was between two tires with 60 TPI casing, the Ardent and the Ardent Race 27.5
I know it does not make much sense but it is how Maxxis described the rolling resistance on the two tires.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Sign me up for a 2.35 AR ^^ w/ Ikon 2.35 outback would be a sweat XC/Endurance setup

-----------------------------------------------------------
#1 resolution... Ride it like I stole it!!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Lower tpi is tougher. Less likely to get holes torn and gashes. The tpi count on these comes from the strands being half as large. More likely to pinch, fold, flop, etc. too. Like a set of nylon track warm-up pants vs nylon parka, or how a higher tpi bed sheet feels more supple/softer. My 120 tpi Ikon got punctured riding over a branch that had some stubby bits to it. Rider in front of me rode over it np...

IMO, the double down and supergravity style casings is a step in the right direction, keeping the tread part flexible but the sidewalls stiff and supportive, but I think if ProCore got refined, that would be the top all-around trail/AM solution when paired with a 2.5 or 2.6 tire in this low profile fashion.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

mevnet said:


> Tires are not old but from Europe where there are a lot more options. And the spec comparison was between two tires with 60 TPI casing, the Ardent and the Ardent Race 27.5
> I know it does not make much sense but it is how Maxxis described the rolling resistance on the two tires.


I really think it's relative to the category they're in. With the Ardent relative to the Trail/DH category, it has a 3 for rolling resistance, relative to the HR2 that has a 2 for rolling resistance (I checked the package on one while in a bike shop this weekend). Whereas in the Race category, the Ardent Race has a 2 relative to tires like the Ikon and Aspen.

That's the only thing that makes sense. Obviously the Ardent Race has far better rolling resistance than a High Roller 2, which is also marked 2 for rolling resistance. The rating is relative to the category they're in.

If Maxxis was comparing rolling resistance across their whole catalog of mountain bike tires, then 4 just wouldn't be enough, and it would make all the minions and such look bad, since they'd be a 1 compared to something like an Aspen. The Ardent Race is not a slower rolling tire than an Ardent. You can look at it and see that.


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

@DLd I think you're right, it had to be that way. 
Everything would be a lot easier if they provided a bit more info on the site like Schwalbe does. Oh well...still like their tires


----------



## F29Lefty (Apr 10, 2014)

Does the Ardent Race come in MaxxTerra compound.. or just MaxxSpeed?


----------



## hitechredneck (May 9, 2009)

F29Lefty said:


> Does the Ardent Race come in MaxxTerra compound.. or just MaxxSpeed?


One could only with for maxx terra. However I have a feeling maxx speed is all we will get.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bos (Feb 13, 2013)

I put an Ardent Race 2.3 on the back of a Specialized Epic. Tried it with Ikon 2.3 on the front. I good combo on dry rocks and roots. Later that day I tried it with a regular Ardent 2.4 up front. I like the first combo better overall but an Ikon won't be good on muddy winter trails. I might have to try the AR up front with Ikon in the rear while its still dry. I'm 190 lbs but like low pressure in my tires, around 20 psi.


----------



## RobinG (Nov 6, 2016)

Yup, just got some and they are pretty great!


----------



## Bos (Feb 13, 2013)

Bos said:


> I put an Ardent Race 2.3 on the back of a Specialized Epic. Tried it with Ikon 2.3 on the front. I good combo on dry rocks and roots. Later that day I tried it with a regular Ardent 2.4 up front. I like the first combo better overall but an Ikon won't be good on muddy winter trails. I might have to try the AR up front with Ikon in the rear while its still dry. I'm 190 lbs but like low pressure in my tires, around 20 psi.


I did switch the AR 2.35 to the front and Ikon 2.35 to the rear. The AR is definitely nice as both front and rear. The Ikon feels like higher rolling resistance on asphalt and less grip in dirt. My area has lots of roots and rocks. Both do well for that. I haven't yet tried them both together on wet roots and rocks. That should be coming soon. But so far, I'm wanting to swap the Ikon for another AR.


----------



## ljcap (Apr 18, 2016)

DLd said:


> I really think it's relative to the category they're in. With the Ardent relative to the Trail/DH category, it has a 3 for rolling resistance, relative to the HR2 that has a 2 for rolling resistance (I checked the package on one while in a bike shop this weekend). Whereas in the Race category, the Ardent Race has a 2 relative to tires like the Ikon and Aspen.
> 
> That's the only thing that makes sense. Obviously the Ardent Race has far better rolling resistance than a High Roller 2, which is also marked 2 for rolling resistance. The rating is relative to the category they're in.
> 
> If Maxxis was comparing rolling resistance across their whole catalog of mountain bike tires, then 4 just wouldn't be enough, and it would make all the minions and such look bad, since they'd be a 1 compared to something like an Aspen. The Ardent Race is not a slower rolling tire than an Ardent. You can look at it and see that.


So maybe I am insane, but is there any way the Ardent 2.25 dual compound rolls faster than the Ardent Race 2.2 3c as a rear???

Somehow the regular Ardent just "seems" more responsive than the AR. Would it be the 3c compound of the AR? I run them at about the same psi, 22-24, my weight is 160.

Not sure how they compare braking either.


----------

