# Maxxis Ikon 2.35



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

Has anyone tried the new Ikon 2.35 as a front tire and how does it compare to the Ardent 2.4, Noby Nick, and other toothier front tires? I think the weight is very good for a large front tire but how does it stick in loose conditions?


----------



## DirtDummy (Aug 22, 2005)

paging Bruce Brown, BB to the white courtesy phone, please...

his previous comments : http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-components/new-maxxis-29er-tires-2013-a-835850.html


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

DirtDummy said:


> paging Bruce Brown, BB to the white courtesy phone, please...
> 
> his previous comments : http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-components/new-maxxis-29er-tires-2013-a-835850.html


It's all in that thread. Better rolling resistance (faster) than the Nic and the Ardent. Lighter than both. Yet plenty of bite for XC cornering. In terms of "loose" conditions, we haven't had to much dry/loose this year due to the rain and snow - so it's hard to tell. I've only ridden hero dirt in races on it this spring. But it sticks at full race speed in corners and I haven't had it give up any corner yet. My rear 2.2 Ikon was all over the place yesterday, but the 2.35 was golden.


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

BB, thanks for the info. I had read your previous post but not focused enough to pick up the comparison to the other tires. I am liking the Ardent 2.4 but sometimes I think its a bit heavy for long XC rides, mine weighed 790 g. I have tried other tires that were 650g to 690g and they seemed to corner good enough. I think I will give the 2.35 a go.


----------



## Stopbreakindown (Jun 27, 2011)

FWIW I bought one that weighed in at 764g

Edit: Talking about the Ikon 2.35


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

My Ardent had been used with Stans which I had wiped off, but some must still be in the tire walls. With that it does weigh 790.


----------



## drz400sm (Nov 12, 2008)

Ardent and ikon are completely different animals. I don't think I'd use the ikon as a front tire unless it was strictly for XC racing. the extra volume doesn't change the basic design of the tire...keep in mind that the 2.2 ikon was extremely small. At 790 grams (or whatever yours weighed)...the ardent isn't really that heavy. Youll find many heavier tires, and alot of the lighter weight ones are made for rolling resistance as first priority. In the rear, thats a whole different story...the ikon is an awesome rear tire suitable for a lot of different riding disciplines.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

drz400sm said:


> Ardent and ikon are completely different animals. I don't think I'd use the ikon as a front tire unless it was strictly for XC racing. the extra volume doesn't change the basic design of the tire...keep in mind that the 2.2 ikon was extremely small. At 790 grams (or whatever yours weighed)...the ardent isn't really that heavy. Youll find many heavier tires, and alot of the lighter weight ones are made for rolling resistance as first priority. In the rear, thats a whole different story...the ikon is an awesome rear tire suitable for a lot of different riding disciplines.


Side lugs are taller on the new Ikon 2.35 compared to the 2.2. This opens it up as an excellent larger volume front tire due to the combination of the contact patch and taller lugs making it worthy of consideration. Certainly, if one is seeking more friction up front then an Ardent and Nic would provide that.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

fruitafrank said:


> BB, thanks for the info. I had read your previous post but not focused enough to pick up the comparison to the other tires. I am liking the Ardent 2.4 but sometimes I think its a bit heavy for long XC rides, mine weighed 790 g. I have tried other tires that were 650g to 690g and they seemed to corner good enough. I think I will give the 2.35 a go.


For XC riding - you'll enjoy the Ikon 2.35 up front. Rolls much faster than the monster truck tire Ardent and is very assuring up front. I think it is safe to say that far too many riders "over tire" their bikes for their local trail conditions (me included). Luckily, BH designed the new 2.35 Ikon without increasing the knob height of the center tread so you still get good speed with it. The taller side lugs he used in his new design provide the type of front tire bite when needed. This increase in volume and taller side lugs makes it much more of an all arounder than I was expecting when I received it last fall for testing.

I'm sure others will pipe up with their experience using it. Comment at this weekend's race by another racer (and MTBR.com member) when he looked at my Ikon 2.35 front tire: "That's a big tire."


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

I'm currently deciding between the 2.35 Racing Ralph and the 2.35 Ikon as my front race tire so am curious to see how this thread pans out. For my trail wheels I use either an Ardent 2.4 of a 2.35 Nobby Nic. It tried the Nobby Nic as a race tire this past weekend and that amount of bite/tread is just not necessary for racing. The 2.4 Ardent has been my favorite trail front tire for a while now, but the Nobby Nic had some nice properties. I wouldn't consider the Ikon a comparable tire to the Nobby Nic or the Ardent as the Ikon is a much less aggressive tire meant for fast rolling and low weight.
I'm definitely guilty of "over tiring" to a degree, but those aggressive side knobs on the Ardent and Nobby Nic have probably saved me a handful of times when my front tire got loose and was able to recover.


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

Thanks for the input guys. I like to experiment with tires to see what diff. in ride quality I get .So if I can save 100+ grams and the tire rolls well then its interesting. A friend who rides all mtn.trails thought the new Ikon looked good, so now to try it. I really liked the 2.2 Ikon as a rear but sliced 2 of them in 2 months so diff. rear now. FWIW I ran a Kenda 2.35 small Block Eight many years ago in Moab and was shocked at how well it performed [except in mud ], on my 26" bike.


----------



## GTscoob (Apr 27, 2009)

Bruce, can you get casing width, tread width and overall height numbers on the 2.2 vs the 2.35 Ikon?

Here are your numbers from the other thread for the 2.35 Ikon but wondering about overall height increase to see if I can squeeze one into the back of my Paradox:
I've got about 24 psi up front at the moment and the tire measured:



BruceBrown said:


> 58.1 mm casing width
> 59.14 mm tread width


I've got a pretty worn 2.2 Ikon in the back and am mainly worried about casing/tread width more than overall height but all need to be considered since it'll be a tight squeeze.

EDIT: Nevermind found the comparison numbers:


BruceBrown said:


> First off, when compared with the Ikon 2.2 on the rear, the 2.35 is 5-6mm taller from rim to top of center tread. Take that times 2 and the height of the wheel is a full 10-12mm taller than the 2.2 Ikon I am comparing it to for that measurement. The casing width is 2.5mm wider than the 2.2 Ikon, and the tread width is 5mm wider than the 2.2 version.


----------



## drz400sm (Nov 12, 2008)

yea, i heard the side lugs are little taller...but at the end of the day its still a cross country tire. The 2.4 option just makes it closer in size to other 2.25-2.35 tires on the market. The great thing about tires is we have tons of options, and none of us are forced to use one particular tire. At least for me, I wouldnt feel as confident running it up front, compared to something like the Ardent, Nobby Nic, HansD, etc. For XC riding, thats a different story...id have no problem using it...but for aggressive riding and loose terrain it may be worth the weight penalty and go with something else. 

Maybe I misunderstood the OP. It seemed like he was putting it in the same category as an ardent or Nobby Nic. To me, id compare the Ikon to a Racing Ralph...and an Ardent to a Nobby Nic (Maxxis - Schwalbe). Either way, Im glad to see they made a larger volume version of the Ikon, the 2.2 version was such a small tire and ive only had luck with it in the rear. Opens the doors to more riders using it and giving us real world feedback.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

drz400sm said:


> yea, i heard the side lugs are little taller...but at the end of the day its still a cross country tire. The 2.4 option just makes it closer in size to other 2.25-2.35 tires on the market. The great thing about tires is we have tons of options, and none of us are forced to use one particular tire. At least for me, I wouldnt feel as confident running it up front, compared to something like the Ardent, Nobby Nic, HansD, etc. For XC riding, thats a different story...id have no problem using it...but for aggressive riding and loose terrain it may be worth the weight penalty and go with something else.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstood the OP. It seemed like he was putting it in the same category as an ardent or Nobby Nic. To me, id compare the Ikon to a Racing Ralph...and an Ardent to a Nobby Nic (Maxxis - Schwalbe). Either way, Im glad to see they made a larger volume version of the Ikon, the 2.2 version was such a small tire and ive only had luck with it in the rear. Opens the doors to more riders using it and giving us real world feedback.


I've got the Ralph 2.25, Ralph 2.4's on my Karate Monkey, Nic 2.35's and 2.25's which I used solely last year on my JET and RIP due to the drought causing loose and dry conditions here in the Midwest, I've got the Ardent 2.4's and the LUST 2.25's. The only tire I don't have that you mention is the Hans Dampf (no need for that where I live and ride). I've got plenty of hours, rides, races, on all of the tires - enough to form an opinion and make a judgement call on all of them.

The Ikon 2.35 is so different from the 2.2, it's difficult to even consider them in the same category (outside of the center lugs and sharing the same name). The change in volume and side lug height does make this a much more aggressive XC tire.

Similar drastic differences due to volume and lugs between a Crow 2.0 and a Raven 2.2. Or a Bontrager XR 1.8 and a Bontrager XR 2.25 front tire (that was a few years ago!!!).

I've ridden it in hero dirt this spring, fall dry and loose drought dirt, frozen dirt, mud this spring, snow, sand and have to say it is a very confidence inspiring front tire. Trumps my Ralphs - especially when moisture and roots are involved. Digs in on aggressive cornering and hooks up quicker than a Nic on corners. I'd say my Nic 2.35's on the RIP are more sure footed and all arounders than the Ardent 2.4's on the same bike. I've had both out in the Black Hills tearing up some fun trail (Storm, M Hill, Dakota Five-0, etc....) and although those tires are a blast here in the Midwest - I consider them overkill or over-tire for the 29"er platform Midwest wise - be it cross country or aggressive cross country.

So if I had to color the Ikon 2.35, I would say it is "less overkill" or "less over-tire" than the Nic 2.35 or Ardents 2.4 because those tires create a lot of friction and require a lot more watts to produce the same speed on climbs and flats which is a huge penalty engine wise. For those that have noticed a difference between the smaller 2.25 Nics and 2.25 Ardents compared to the 2.35 and 2.4 versions - there's even more of a difference - IMO - between the 2.2 Ikon and 2.35 Ikon due to the side lug height difference.





No tire is perfect for everyone, but I am standing firm that the Ikon 2.35 is a lot more aggressive than most will need for typical XC riding solely based on the volume and the additional height in the side lugs which allow you to really lay this tire over and it hooks up immediately. Running it front and rear would be pretty plush and ideal for a SS or rigid bike, or aggressive enough for a sweet spot fully (120-130mm of travel) for some all around riding.

Although I haven't tried it yet, but a fun combination would be the Ikon 2.35 up front and the IRD Fire XC Pro (or Nic 2.25, or Ardent 2.25) in the rear if one wants a more aggressive XC tire combination.

That being said, today's ride will be on less aggressive Renegade 2.3's front and rear....



On hero dirt, of course.:thumbsup:


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

BruceBrown said:


> No tire is perfect for everyone, but I am standing firm that the Ikon 2.35 is a lot more aggressive than most will need for typical XC riding solely based on the volume and the additional height in the side lugs which allow you to really lay this tire over and it hooks up immediately. Running it front and rear would be pretty plush and ideal for a SS or rigid bike, or aggressive enough for a sweet spot fully (120-130mm of travel) for some all around riding.


Spot on. I'm currently running a 29x2.35 Ikon on the rear of my Banshee Prime (paired with a High Roller II up front), and it's a really nice combo for aggressive riding; a step up from the Ardent 2.25 it replaced in all regards. It impresses even me with how much grip it provides when considering the low rolling resistance.


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

This thread was enough to convince me to get a 2.35 Ikon. Someone had mentioned to get the non-exo model because it's more supple, but I was unable to find one of those so EXO casing it is. I should have it by the end of the week and like a true moron, I'll pop it on tubeless and race with it only after running it around on some pavement to try and break it in. I really don't like the Nobby Nic I tried out as a front tire and want it off as soon as possible. I think it will make a great rear tire on my trail wheels so not all is lost.


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

Mounted up Ikon 2.2's I just bought and it looked quite a bit smaller than the Saguaro 2.2 it replaced. I'm going to have to look into the Ikon 2.35's.


----------



## killjoyken (Jun 12, 2009)

BruceBrown: Could you do me a favor and get some measurements of the Renegade 2.3s? I was running a Purgatory 2.3/Renegade 1.95 on my rigid Niner and the newer Specialized tires are now measuring smaller than advertised. New Purg 2.3 now measures 2.2 and my old Renegade 1.95 measures 2.1 so I'm wondering if the new Renegade also measures 2.2. 

I dropped by my LBS to see if they had the Ikon 2.35 and they said they could order one for $80. Sounds like an awesome tire, but Specialized Control tires are $55 so I'm wondering if the Ikon is $25 better than a Ground Control 2.3 or Fast Trak 2.2. The Renegade is super fast and is unstoppable on hardpack, but doesn't handle loose climbs very well. (uh duh)


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

The 2.35 Ikon is awesome. Fast enough for racing, grippy enough for trail days. Big volume is fantastic over rocks and roots. Huge fan. It's the front tire I was looking for.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

dirtdan said:


> The *2.35 Ikon is awesome*. Fast enough for racing, grippy enough for trail days. Big volume is fantastic over rocks and roots. Huge fan. It's the front tire I was looking for.


:thumbsup:


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

killjoyken said:


> BruceBrown: Could you do me a favor and get some measurements of the Renegade 2.3s? I was running a Purgatory 2.3/Renegade 1.95 on my rigid Niner and the newer Specialized tires are now measuring smaller than advertised. New Purg 2.3 now measures 2.2 and my old Renegade 1.95 measures 2.1 so I'm wondering if the new Renegade also measures 2.2.


Whether we are talking about the Ikon 2.35 or the Renegade 2.3 or most tires - it takes more time than one thinks for the tire to expand and grow a mm or two after installing. The 2.3 Renegades (Control version) will grow their casing width at least a full mm to 58mm (or 58.x mm) given a couple of weeks - or more - after the initial install had them measure out at 57mm in casing width. At least they did on my Light Bicycle carbon AM rims where they measure 58.x mm now. So they were a full 2.3" after 3 weeks and some good rides on them. The Ikon 2.35 took plenty of time to grow as well on the similar Roval wider rim (took a few months actually).



killjoyken said:


> I dropped by my LBS to see if they had the Ikon 2.35 and they said they could order one for $80. Sounds like an awesome tire, but Specialized Control tires are $55 so I'm wondering if the Ikon is $25 better than a Ground Control 2.3 or Fast Trak 2.2. The Renegade is super fast and is unstoppable on hardpack, but doesn't handle loose climbs very well. (uh duh)


Right. We're talking about 2 different types of tires here between the Renegade and the Ikon 2.35. The Ikon has more friction, weighs more, and is much more suitable as an aggressive XC front tire than the Renegade (620g for the control version and 570g for the S-Works version). The Ikon has a square tread profile, and the Renegade is much rounder. If you know the Raven 2.2 - the Renegade is very similar in profile, performance and feel - but better in all of those than the Raven.

I also don't know the longevity yet of the center tread on a Renegade. I've read various reports saying not to expect more than 3 months out of them, but the poster who said that didn't quantify if he had been hitting some pavement or dirt only and didn't mention the type of soil/terrain and his braking technique. I've been running the Ikon 2.35 up front on my JET 9 for 7 months now and it shows no visible signs of wear as of yet.

The Renegade is a pure XC and race tire, so the shorter center tread knobs, lighter overall weight, etc... should probably mirror the longevity of other minimal tread 29"er tires (Raven 2.2, Maxxlites, Crows, XR's, etc...). It's a "Big Velcro" volume tire that hooks up surprisingly well front and rear, but you're right - staying seated is not bad advice on power climbs with a Renegade in the rear (the same is true for all minimal tread XC race tires). Seems to work well on my RIP 9 where the suspension does a lot of work keeping tires glued to the trail.

I can't answer your question of the Ikon 2.35 for $25 more is worth that cash over a Specialized Control (haven't tried that one) of Fast Trak (haven't tried that one). I just know the Ikon is an excellent aggressive XC tire. I wouldn't hesitate to run it up front, nor would I hesitate to run it front and rear on a singlespeed or my RIP 9 if I wanted an aggressive set up to head out to the mountains.


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

Any others that measured the weight? I'm interested in the non-EXO version (685g claimed weight on their site). I've got the 2.2 (non-EXO) on my XC bike and really like it. 2.35 will be nice on the rear of my other bike, mounted on P35's.


----------



## dickt3030 (Dec 5, 2010)

I still haven't found a front tire that comes close to the perfection of the OLD WTB Weirwolf 2.55, in terms of volume, rolling resistance, tread design. Maybe the Ikon 2.35 will be my new baby!!


----------



## mattnmtns (Sep 16, 2010)

dickt3030 said:


> I still haven't found a front tire that comes close to the perfection of the OLD WTB Weirwolf 2.55, in terms of volume, rolling resistance, tread design. Maybe the Ikon 2.35 will be my new baby!!


Same here. Luckily I still have a lot of life in one bit everything I have been reading bout the new ikon sounds perfect. Sure there are times I want something more agressive an I will switch out but for 99% of my riding I want it all. Fast,light, and hooks up. Guess I cat get cheap in there too.

Looking forward to give the new ikon for a spin as my front.


----------



## fueledbymetal (Jul 20, 2007)

I just rocked it for a week at TSE - I'd say it's better for sure than the 2.2 up front but not quite as grippy as the 2.4 Ardent. Overall I'm pleased with it and will keep it up front on my FS and keep running the 2.4 ardent on my rigid SS's.


----------



## killjoyken (Jun 12, 2009)

Thanks for the info Bruce. I actually just swapped on a new 2.4 Ardent Exo and a 2.2 Ikon 3C EXC Exo onto my rigid (came on my SB95) and I must say that I'm impressed with the performance. They're a little slower than the Purg/Rene combo, but the Ikon blows the Renegade away when things get loose. When it does let go, it's very predictable and gives a nice controllable drift. I would love to swap a Fast Trak to the back for a direct comparison, but it was a major pain seating the bead on my i19 so it's staying on til it's worn out.

I'm guessing the Ardent is the cause of the slower speed, but it's got so much grip that I may be willing to sacrifice the speed. If I can ever find a good deal for an Ikon 2.35 I'll definately swap the Ardent out in the front. I haven't run Maxxis tires in years due to cost and ease of mounting tubeless (Specialized wins easily), but now I can see why people like them.


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Just mounted a 2.35 Ikon EXC. Weighed in at 650g. Width right after mounting was 2.25 on a 24mm rim. Tire looks awesome.


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

ktm520 - thanks for the info. Sounds like I'm going to be ordering this soon.


----------



## RancidSLP (Nov 6, 2008)

I live in Austin. Lots of roots, rocks, loose over hard park, and hard pack/dust. I mounted up the 2.35 Ikon on the front of my Trance X 29er and left my well work 2.25 Nobby Nic on the back. The 2.35 Ikon is AWESOME. Great turn in, tons of grip, super high volume. So far I love this tire, and I'll be replacing the rear with one as well.


----------



## BacDoc (May 31, 2011)

Some great ride reports and feedback on this tire, can anyone comment on how this compares to the panaracer rampage 2.35? Looks similar and I always liked the rampage as a front tire and want to know how this compares.


----------



## skey44 (Dec 8, 2011)

Tubeless report on the 2.35? I have the pacenti tl 28
rim which is much like a Stan's profile. I would be interested if they mount up ok and stay tubeless.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

skey44 said:


> Tubeless report on the 2.35? I have the pacenti tl 28
> rim which is much like a Stan's profile. I would be interested if they mount up ok and stay tubeless.


Work great tubeless. I've only run mine on the Roval carbon rims (Trail/AM version).


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

Mounted mine up as a rear last Thursday tubeless on a Flow. Used a tube to seat the bead, popped one-side added the valve plus 2 scoops, and seated it with a compressor. Did the Stan's shake 4 x each side and let hang on a hook until today when I found it had leaked air. Likely culprit was the valve stem, which I tightened, and then rode this evening without any air loss.

First impressions at 28 psi was that it rolls fast, and hooks up well. In spots, trails were pretty wet, and it no problems. Look forward to further rides, and believe I've found my new big volume, go-to, rear tire.


----------



## skey44 (Dec 8, 2011)

How would you compare the bead diameter to schwalbe tlr? I find schwalbe to be slightly loose on my tl-28 and crests.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

Didn't notice it being too loose, or tight, and have had great success with Maxxis EXO's tubeless on Flows.

Think this big(ger) volume Ikon will be sweet to my rigid-riding SS Clyde azz.

(by phone)


----------



## skey44 (Dec 8, 2011)

Thanks for the replies :thumbsup: now to get one in my hands for when the rr RaRa SS gives it up. Thanks for all the great info on this new tire. I feel like I can order it over the RaRa for the extra width, cushion, and rim protection (high volume to prevent dings at low psi) with little compromise if not better grip, durability, tubeless performance, wear, weight, and rolling resistance. I'm excited as this sounds like the tire I've been looking for. Our local "piedmont forest" trails should be prime stomping grounds for this rubber. I showed a friend from an LBS and his first reaction was to try it frt/rr on his new wheel set to compare back to back with RaRa front rr ( his current setup).


----------



## ktm520 (Apr 21, 2004)

Got a second EXC that weighed in at 640g


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Bruce, 

do you recommend the 3C or the 3C/EXO if I'm going to run tubeless?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

jochribs said:


> Bruce,
> 
> do you recommend the 3C or the 3C/EXO if I'm going to run tubeless?


I haven't tried the EXO versions of any Ikon tire. I've run all of mine (2.2 and the new 2.35) just fine tubeless with NoTubes sealant. The 2.2 for years, the new 2.35 since last fall (test tire).

The better question would be what kind of sharp things do you face on your local trails? Sidewall cuts/tears are not that common in the part of the Midwest where I live and ride - so no need for the EXO here. In 10 years, I've torn one Racing Ralph (which I patched and still run) and one Bontrager XR 2.25 many years back which I also patched.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

3C it is... We're rocky here, but the rocks are 'generally' round edged. Mica Schist. (Wissahickon Schist)

I'm running S-Works Renegades without any real issues with the sidewalls. Got a scuff a while back but it hasn't gotten worse, nor have I sustained anymore. Changed over to tubeless with them last week and they are holding fine. I cleaned the area inside the tire and threw on a square of Gorilla Tape for back up.

Thanks Bruce.


----------



## B-RAY (Jul 15, 2004)

I can't find one of those 2.35's anywhere been searching like crazy. BB how does the Renagade 2.35 compare to the ikon in ur opinion?


----------



## agoura_biker (Jun 6, 2004)

B-RAY said:


> I can't find one of those 2.35's anywhere been searching like crazy. BB how does the Renagade 2.35 compare to the ikon in ur opinion?


Ditto! These sound great, but I looked around a bit and can't find the 2.35s. How do we get them?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

B-RAY said:


> I can't find one of those 2.35's anywhere been searching like crazy. BB how does the Renagade 2.35 compare to the ikon in ur opinion?


Did you try the Maxxis eStore?

Obviously, 2 different tires. The Renegade 2.3 is a big volume, very rounded profile XC tire that is light and quick, yet has plenty of traction for XC racing and riding. It has more minimal tread - especially the side lugs. The Ikon 2.35 is much more aggressive XC to even trail tire that is smack dab between an Ardent 2.4 and the Ikon 2.2. In terms of up front for sure footed handling, the Ikon tops the Renegade for cornering bite and braking bite. I've only run it up front as it is too aggressive for my needs in the rear. Although I would like to have it front and rear on my Karate Monkey singlespeed. The Renegade 2.3 is the largest volume minimal tread tire that I am aware of - so the contact patch and big volume provide the majority of the traction.

Both are excellent tires worth riding and racing for my needs.


----------



## B-RAY (Jul 15, 2004)

So the Renagade has more volume, but smaller lugs than the Ikon? If so thats cool for now until i can get my hands on a Ikon 2.35. I have a Surly 3.0 on the front of my Fox 34 and Iam loving it on my Stumpy Fsr with carbon havens, the tire is lighter than the dissent i took off and way bigger running it tubless fun times. Thanks again BB for your input!


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

B-RAY said:


> So the Renagade has more volume, but smaller lugs than the Ikon? If so thats cool for now until i can get my hands on a Ikon 2.35. I have a Surly 3.0 on the front of my Fox 34 and Iam loving it on my Stumpy Fsr with carbon havens, the tire is lighter than the dissent i took off and way bigger running it tubless fun times. Thanks again BB for your input!


No problem. Just to clarify.....I didn't say the Renegade 2.3 has more volume than the Ikon 2.35. Casing width for the two are just about the same, but the side lugs on the Ikon make it measure out larger.

Ikon 2.35 at 24 psi on my Roval carbon rims tubeless:

58.1 mm casing width
59.14 mm tread width

Renegade 2.3 on the same Roval carbon rims tubeless:

57-58mm casing width (depending on psi and which tire I am measuring front or rear)


----------



## Observer (May 30, 2012)

Hi, Bruce and others.

I'm quite new to MTB, and I'm asking for an advise on tires for my bike. Currently I'm running very light hardtail Ti Motobecane 29er with Kenda Small Blocks 8 2.1 (front+rear). This setup is great for generic XC and I enjoy it very much. But there's also a comparatively low-speed trail (avg speed 11-12 mph) right near my home and every time I go there I feel myself really uncomfortable. I know that my trail skills are still mediocre and that's one part of a problem, but I also see that my current tires don't let me feel confident when I'm on the trail. My front tire washes out every time I'm trying to ride a bit more aggressively. Thus I'm looking for your help regarding tire setup.

Conditions:
1. XC is a priority
2. But I'm ready to trade some of the rolling speed for additional grip needed on a trail (I don't ride slow, technical trails though)
Trail:
3. No mud or extremely wet conditions
4. Mostly dry, hard and loose over hard - pine needles, leaves, roots, a bit of sand and those round pebbles, basically typical forest trail in SE Michigan.
5. By the way I'm under 160 lbs

I did a research on the web for a solution in my situation and I came to the same setup that you use on your FS bike:
Front: Maxxis Ikon 2.35
Rear: Maxxis Ikon 2.2

I also think that Ardent 2.4 or Nic 2.35 are overkill for 29er with focus on XC, even aggressive XC. However, I noticed that several times you mentioned that you'd ride 2.35 front AND REAR on your singlespeed or rigid bike. So my question is - why would you go with 2.35 on rear as well for hardtails? What's the idea behind? A bit more cushion?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Observer said:


> I did a research on the web for a solution in my situation and I came to the same setup that you use on your FS bike:
> Front: Maxxis Ikon 2.35
> Rear: Maxxis Ikon 2.2
> 
> I also think that Ardent 2.4 or Nic 2.35 are overkill for 29er with focus on XC, even aggressive XC. However, I noticed that several times you mentioned that you'd ride 2.35 front AND REAR on your singlespeed or rigid bike. So my question is - why would you go with 2.35 on rear as well for hardtails? What's the idea behind? A bit more cushion?


Yes - for more cushion/suspension.

I wouldn't be so quick to label the Ardent 2.4 and Nobby Nic 2.35 as "overkill" for XC, even aggressive XC" as they are both wonderful - and fun - tires. The Ikon 2.35 is going to give you a lot of the same type of performance at a lighter weight and better rolling resistance.


----------



## Surfdog93 (May 30, 2005)

As Bruce mentioned, definitely not "overkill" going to larger front tires. I've gone from one extreme (sort of) .... RaRa to a Hans Dampf and the difference in speed over say a 10-minute XC trail segment is insignificant. Sure, you might work a little harder getting it up to speed, but then you will be more prepared as trail conditions change and your confidence/grip/fun will go way up.


----------



## Observer (May 30, 2012)

BruceBrown said:


> Yes - for more cushion/suspension.
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to label the Ardent 2.4 and Nobby Nic 2.35 as "overkill" for XC, even aggressive XC" as they are both wonderful - and fun - tires. The Ikon 2.35 is going to give you a lot of the same type of performance at a lighter weight and better rolling resistance.


I totally agree, Nic and Ardent are fun tires, but for my purpose I'd rather go with lighter weight and better rolling.


----------



## Observer (May 30, 2012)

Surfdog93 said:


> As Bruce mentioned, definitely not "overkill" going to larger front tires. I've gone from one extreme (sort of) .... RaRa to a Hans Dampf and the difference in speed over say a 10-minute XC trail segment is insignificant. Sure, you might work a little harder getting it up to speed, but then you will be more prepared as trail conditions change and your confidence/grip/fun will go way up.


I agree, but in my case it's not just 10-minute XC trails or trail segments. I often ride more than 40, sometimes even 50 miles on my hardtail - mixed dirt and paved roads and different types of XC trails. Thus I think there'll be noticeable difference between Ardent 2.4 and Ikon even in 2.35


----------



## Surfdog93 (May 30, 2005)

Observer said:


> I agree, but in my case it's not just 10-minute XC trails or trail segments. I often ride more than 40, sometimes even 50 miles on my hardtail - mixed dirt and paved roads and different types of XC trails. Thus I think there'll be noticeable difference between Ardent 2.4 and Ikon even in 2.35


As you mentioned you are new to mountain biking, I'm sure either tire will work sufficiently and once you have ridden a bunch, it will be time for new tire anyway.


----------



## GTscoob (Apr 27, 2009)

Ikon 2.35 rocks, almost enough to where I think it might be grippier than my 2.4" Ardent up front on my trails. 

Casing is almost identical between the two 29er tires. 59mm on the Ikon, 60mm on the Ardent but I imagine the Ikon will stretch out to the full 60 after use.


----------



## Observer (May 30, 2012)

By the way, I plan to set my front Ikon 2.35 as tubeless, but my rims are only 19mm wide. Can that be a problem?

UPDATE: 19mm is an inner width (it seems even closer to 18mm), outside is 24mm.


----------



## Gilarider (Jul 13, 2009)

It can be a problem if you don't put enough air in your tire. Basically, you will likely have to run it a few psi higher than you would on a wider rim to keep the tire from squirming around when you corner. On a wider rim you could likely go down a few psi until the limiting factor becomes your rim hitting whatever you are riding over.

So your skinny rim will keep you from getting that last few psi of cush and traction out of the tire, it's not the end of the world, but it kind of defeats the purpose of getting such a big tire.

For example, I had 22mm wide rims(outside width) and those were the only ones I had tires squirm on, I had to keep about 24psi in the front when I would have liked to have run about 21psi, so it wasn't a huge deal for me.

Of course, I could be wrong if you go crazy fast downhill and just plow into stuff, then you are probably already running high enough psi that the tire won't squirm.



Observer said:


> By the way, I plan to set my front Ikon 2.35 as tubeless, but my rims are only 19mm wide. Can that be a problem?


----------



## JasonL (Nov 18, 2011)

Has anyone found a place that has the 29x2.35 non EXO. Don't really need the extra protection or weight for a front tire.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

JasonL said:


> Has anyone found a place that has the 29x2.35 non EXO. Don't really need the extra protection or weight for a front tire.


Subscribed. Im looking for the same tire and can't seem to find it anywhere!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## byrot (Nov 1, 2012)

You can buy them directly from Maxxis.

https://www.shopmaxxis.com/b2c/


----------



## JasonL (Nov 18, 2011)

byrot said:


> You can buy them directly from Maxxis.
> 
> https://www.shopmaxxis.com/b2c/


That's the problem. $77 for a tire that normally sells for 50-55 bucks. No thanks


----------



## Observer (May 30, 2012)

Gilarider said:


> It can be a problem if you don't put enough air in your tire.
> 
> ... CUT...


Ohh, sorry for the confusion. My rims have 19mm *inner* width, outside is around 25mm.


----------



## Gilarider (Jul 13, 2009)

Observer said:


> Ohh, sorry for the confusion. My rims have 19mm *inner* width, outside is around 25mm.


No, I'M sorry for the confusion. I knew you meant inside width, I didn't remember the inside width of my old rims so I put outside width just to show they were narrow. They were the first American Classic 29er rims, which I think were just their beefier road rims.

19mm inside width will be OK, I think, but it depends on your weight, terrain, style, etc. My only point is your rim may require a few extra psi than a wider rim.


----------



## Observer (May 30, 2012)

Just for everybody to know:

I successfully converted my Vuelta Team Superlight rims with 19mm inner width and 24mm outer width to tubeless using Ikon 2.35 for my front and Ikon 2.2 on a rear.

The method that worked for me is *gorilla tape + stans rim strip (29er cross-country)*.

After really long analysis I decided not to go with split tube method because my rims are kinda tubeless-friendly (although not tubeless-ready) and I also used tubeless-ready Ikon with EXO sidewalls for additional support.

Initially I tried to go with gorilla tape only + stans valves. I removed original red rim liner and used 2 layers of gorilla tape to seal the rim. Then I made a hole for the valve - inserted the valve, put a tire on and was able to get a really good seal using air compressor with first shot. I have to say that Ikon bead worked great - my tire was at 40 psi and didn't loose any air for 2 days without any sealant!

However, when I tried to deflate the tire - I was not able to pump it back. That was a moment when I realized what "bead lock" means. Unfortunately my rims (Vuelta) are not tubeless-ready and they do not have a "bead-shelf" - thus my Ikon tire was sitting too loose inside a rim and there's no chance for bead to stay put if pressure goes down.

That forced me to use a stans rim strip that works as a pseudo-bead-shelf and allows to get a tight lock on a bead. That's actually the main purpose of the rim strip, not air isolation.

So, I removed the valve, cleaned the rim again, put rim strip on (very easy thing to do), added just a bit of soap water - and pop-pop, my tire was sealed nicely (with air compressor of course). Again, Ikon worked great - no air leaks except one little bubble near the valve (no sealant yet, remember). But this time, I was able to pump my tire again using my floor-pump. I deflated-inflated the tire several times just to make sure that I can do that with floor pump easily.

Then I removed the valve core, added ~80ml of stans sealant (using stans sealant injector) and pumped it up again with my floor pump. Not a single spill of sealant on my garage floor - nice and clean work.

In several seconds the leak near the valve was sealed and it stays this way up till now.

As a part of testing procedure I rode ~60 miles on dirt roads with 40 psi in both tires. Then ~100 miles on dirt roads with 20 psi front and rear (I'm under 160lbs). Then ~25 miles of trail riding. Everything looks great so far.

Expenses:
1. Gorilla tape - $2.7
2. Rim strips - 2x$20.5
3. Stans sealant injector - $9
4. Stans 32oz - $24

~$77 in total.

Can be $40 less if you don't need rim strips and your rims have bead shelves.

Have a nice ride, guys.


----------



## vmaxx4 (Jul 13, 2010)

JasonL said:


> That's the problem. $77 for a tire that normally sells for 50-55 bucks. No thanks


Arts Cycle. Use the Promo code "SAVE15" and they come in at $59.50.

Maxxis Ikon 29er Tire


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

Observer said:


> Hi, Bruce and others.
> 
> I'm quite new to MTB, and I'm asking for an advise on tires for my bike. Currently I'm running very light hardtail Ti Motobecane 29er with Kenda Small Blocks 8 2.1 (front+rear). This setup is great for generic XC and I enjoy it very much. But there's also a comparatively low-speed trail (avg speed 11-12 mph) right near my home and every time I go there I feel myself really uncomfortable. I know that my trail skills are still mediocre and that's one part of a problem, but I also see that my current tires don't let me feel confident when I'm on the trail. My front tire washes out every time I'm trying to ride a bit more aggressively. Thus I'm looking for your help regarding tire setup.
> 
> ...


What pressure are you running?
Are you running tubeless?


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

vmaxx4 said:


> Arts Cycle. Use the Promo code "SAVE15" and they come in at $59.50.
> 
> Maxxis Ikon 29er Tire


He's looking for the 3C (non Exo) tire, and they don't seem to have it there.


----------



## Observer (May 30, 2012)

dirtdan said:


> What pressure are you running?
> Are you running tubeless?


I'm running with 20-22 front and 26-28 rear. Running front as a tubeless now, rear still to be converted (next week hopefully).

Why?


----------



## ccornacc (Mar 26, 2007)

Does anyone have any comparison on a RaRa 2.35 vs Ikon 2.35 on the front?


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

ccornacc said:


> Does anyone have any comparison on a RaRa 2.35 vs Ikon 2.35 on the front?


Sure. I've got both - what do you want compared?


----------



## ccornacc (Mar 26, 2007)

Sorry, should have clarified. How is the front cornering grip on the Ikon compared to the RaRa. I have never felt as comfortable on the RaRa, so I typically ride the ardent 2.4 on the front now. They seem to break loose much easier on the trail surfaces here in CO.

The Ikon seems intriguing if it grips better than the RaRa and rolls faster than the Ardent.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks!


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

ccornacc said:


> Sorry, should have clarified. How is the front cornering grip on the Ikon compared to the RaRa. I have never felt as comfortable on the RaRa, so I typically ride the ardent 2.4 on the front now. They seem to break loose much easier on the trail surfaces here in CO.
> 
> The Ikon seems intriguing if it grips better than the RaRa and rolls faster than the Ardent.
> 
> ...


The big Ikon is much more aggressive tire than the Racing Ralph - for sure. And yes, it rolls much faster than the Ardent. I guess the best description for your purposes is that the Ikon 2.35 would be smack dab in the middle between the big Ralph and the big Ardent in terms of overall performance. Smoother rolling (rolling resistantance wise) due to the short center knobs of the Ikon, but taller side lugs for very aggressive cornering. At least, I find it very aggressive for XC purposes. So much so, that it is overkill for most of my riding.


----------



## ccornacc (Mar 26, 2007)

Thanks Bruce! Just ordered one!


----------



## Burnerd (Dec 4, 2004)

I have been watching this thread for some time and also decided to give the Ikon 2.35's a try. I have most recently been running Racing Ralph 2.35's F&R (non-snake-skin) and had a sidewall tear and was looking for something else. I ride mostly cross-country type trails. 
I mounted up the Ikons easily to Nox rims tubeless, first try. No weeping or sealing issues with the standard, non-exo version.

On the trails, these tires are the best I have found. Almost as fast as the Ra - Ra, but way more traction. Ralphs required much more aggressive leaning into corners than the Ikons. 
I can also compare them to Nobby Nics; and I found almost as much cornering and climbing traction as 2.35 Nics. - except in muddy conditions. Also Ikons felt faster and lighter with better acceleration and maneuverability. 

I am ~195 lbs geared up and am running 25psi rear and 23psi front. no squirm, great performance. 

I love a large volume tire and am very pleased with Ikon 2.35's.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Where did you purchase the 2.35 non-exo's? The only place I can find them is the maxxis online store. And also what is the inner width of your rims?

Anyone have experience running these on stans crest or arch ex??


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

I just put one on the front, for a XC tire light,fast rolling , good turn in, whats not to like. Mine re the EXO version and just under 700g. Very impressed so far.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

8iking VIIking said:


> Where did you purchase the 2.35 non-exo's? The only place I can find them is the maxxis online store. And also what is the inner width of your rims?
> 
> Anyone have experience running these on stans crest or arch ex??


I just got mine 3C (Non EXO) from Maxxis directly. Only place I could find them. Had some really pleasant conversations with the folks there at Maxxis as well. So easy going and helpful. Made me want to get a job there.

I have Crests and will be mounting them up today, tubeless. I'll report back, but I am figuring I am going to be pleased with these.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

8iking VIIking said:


> Where did you purchase the 2.35 non-exo's? The only place I can find them is the maxxis online store.


I'm only seeing them here: Maxxis Ikon 29"

BTW, the manufacturer's part number is TB96729000. Search for this number in the future; additional distributors may pick them up.

And I'm glad you guys are digging the tire. I think I'm most proud of the Ikon.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

jochribs said:


> I just got mine 3C (Non EXO) from Maxxis directly. Only place I could find them. Had some really pleasant conversations with the folks there at Maxxis as well. So easy going and helpful. Made me want to get a job there.
> 
> I have Crests and will be mounting them up today, tubeless. I'll report back, but I am figuring I am going to be pleased with these.


Looking forward to a report! Thanks!


----------



## beer_coffee_water (Mar 1, 2011)

I ride a Honzo with a 2.4 Ardent EXO/2.35 Ikon EXO combo. The grip up front is great from the Ardent. The Ikon is awesome though. It is nearly the same size of the Ardent, nice and cushy, and has just enough traction through the corners where I can choose when I want it to break away. Also it is fast on hard pack and similar surfaces. These are set up tubeless with the Ardent on an i23 at 20-22 lbs and the Ikon on a Flow at 24-28 lbs. I weigh around 185 geared and my bike is less 29 lbs.


----------



## Burnerd (Dec 4, 2004)

8iking VIIking said:


> Where did you purchase the 2.35 non-exo's? The only place I can find them is the maxxis online store. And also what is the inner width of your rims?
> 
> Anyone have experience running these on stans crest or arch ex??


I got mine at the Maxis online store. Couldn't find non-exo anywhere else. 
Inner width is 24mm on the Nox rims. 
I have found that narrower rims require a little more tire pressure to support the sidewalls.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Burnerd said:


> I got mine at the Maxis online store. Couldn't find non-exo anywhere else.
> Inner width is 24mm on the Nox rims.
> I have found that narrower rims require a little more tire pressure to support the sidewalls.


That's what I was afraid of....im running arch ex's and love my low pressures :thumbup:

I might hold out for the ardent race, which by all accounts sounds like a sweet tire, but its not available in the US yet


----------



## client_9 (Apr 28, 2009)

Another endorsement for the 2.35 IKON rear / 2.4 Ardent front.
I'm 215 lbs w/ gear and riding rocks and roots. I went with the EXO for both.
Set up tubeless on Flow rims. No problems. Love the big volume.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

8iking VIIking said:


> Looking forward to a report! Thanks!


No ride report as of yet except for a quick couple miles on the road. A bit heavier than the Renegade 2.3's I was running but feel smooth too. I have tubes in now, because the tape on my front wheel gave up the ghost when I was seating the tire. Probably retape tonight.

One thing that I noticed when mounting the tires was that the one that I put on my front wheel felt a lot more loose fitting than the one that I put on the rear wheel. Was easy to get on the rim (Crest), whereas the rear was more of the sort of fight that I am used to. I did the front first, and thought, "man, this is a bit looser than I would have expected", and figured it just to be the way the tires fit, but the rear was much tighter. I'm a little concerned about the possibility of burping. I guess I'll see. Being that the two tires fit differently, I wonder of there's a problem with the looser one?

Does anyone else have any feedback about the fit of the Ikon on Crest's?


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

jochribs said:


> No ride report as of yet except for a quick couple miles on the road. A bit heavier than the Renegade 2.3's I was running but feel smooth too. I have tubes in now, because the tape on my front wheel gave up the ghost when I was seating the tire. Probably retape tonight.
> 
> One thing that I noticed when mounting the tires was that the one that I put on my front wheel felt a lot more loose fitting than the one that I put on the rear wheel. Was easy to get on the rim (Crest), whereas the rear was more of the sort of fight that I am used to. I did the front first, and thought, "man, this is a bit looser than I would have expected", and figured it just to be the way the tires fit, but the rear was much tighter. I'm a little concerned about the possibility of burping. I guess I'll see. Being that the two tires fit differently, I wonder of there's a problem with the looser one?
> 
> Does anyone else have any feedback about the fit of the Ikon on Crest's?


FWIW I've heard from a lot of others having good success with 2.2's on crests, but haven't heard much about the 2.35s


----------



## rave81 (Mar 1, 2013)

which one do you recommended for rear tire the ikon 2.35 or the 2.2 version? My current setup are ardent 2.25 front/rear if this this setup very slow. Anyway I ride endure/ all mountain trails in my 29er.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

rave81 said:


> which one do you recommended for rear tire the ikon 2.35 or the 2.2 version? My current setup are ardent 2.25 front/rear if this this setup very slow. Anyway I ride endure/ all mountain trails in my 29er.


2.35 for more cush and traction, 2.2 if weight is a big concern. For all mountain riding a lot of people love the ardent 2.4 front/ikon 2.35 rear


----------



## B-RAY (Jul 15, 2004)

I have a knard 3.0 on the front of my stumpjumper fsr with a Ikon 2.35 on the rear. Iam loving both of the tires, very fast and capable combo!


----------



## rave81 (Mar 1, 2013)

8iking VIIking said:


> 2.35 for more cush and traction, 2.2 if weight is a big concern. For all mountain riding a lot of people love the ardent 2.4 front/ikon 2.35 rear


 Will it affect the speed since 2.35 is wider than 2.2?


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

I've gotten a couple days on the 2.35's on Crests and I really like the tire so far. I am running about 18psi front and 19psi rear, tubeless, and they are rolling fast and feeling supple. 

They sealed up unbelievably easy. I have not had such an easy time except for Specialized tires. Aired up with a floor pump, and held pressure with no loss for a few hours while I was doing other work on the bike, and hadn't put the sealant in yet. Not so much as a hiccup on the trail. 

Yesterday was a mix of rocks, frozen dirt, and miserable mud. They did well in all, except for the mud. They seemed to pack up, and not shed so well. This isn't really a negative as far as I'm concerned because I don't like to ride in mud, and this mud was super sticky, tacky, just friggin nasty stuff to top it off. I think most tires would have loaded up pretty good in this situation...that being said, my wife's Fasttraks didn't fill up nearly as bad...

Today was hardpack with shale, and some wet areas that had some thin mud (nothing like the peanut butter from the day before). Tires worked great. Held in fast turns, climbed great, never so much as washed out in the front (and they were getting pushed) or spun in the rear. 

I definitely like these tires. I am running the Non-Exo ones, and the rocks from yesterday, and the sharp shale from today didn't even leave a mark.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

jochribs said:


> I've gotten a couple days on the 2.35's on Crests and I really like the tire so far. I am running about 18psi front and 19psi rear, tubeless, and they are rolling fast and feeling supple.
> 
> They sealed up unbelievably easy. I have not had such an easy time except for Specialized tires. Aired up with a floor pump, and held pressure with no loss for a few hours while I was doing other work on the bike, and hadn't put the sealant in yet. Not so much as a hiccup on the trail.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the write up! Ikon 2.35 front/2.2 rear it is for me :thumbup:


----------



## rave81 (Mar 1, 2013)

I just replaced my ardent rear tire to ikon 2.2, while I maintain ardent 2.25 in front. It is big improvement it rolls faster and requires my less effort to pedal. . Anyway both front & rear are Exo version and setup as tubeless. .

i noticed less braking power on the rear tire ikon 2.2 Exo and slight wably during high speed descend compare to my ardet Exo 2.25. Is this normal characteristic of ikon 2.2?


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

When you say less braking power in the rear, what are you referring to? Like when you lock up the brakes and throw the rear into a skid, it doesn't slow the bike as fast? 

I didn't notice any loss of braking power at all. But I'm not skidding, and the power is coming from the front.


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

Ardent's knobs stick out farther and should naturally brake better than the Ikon.


----------



## TedS123 (Dec 2, 2009)

Crosspost from wheel & tire forum:

Maxxis Ikon 29 x 2.35 EXO, non-tubeless ready: 684 g

Much less than the advertised 760 g :thumbup:. Been running one on the front since this summer and like it very well - love the width and volume and predictable traction as it is leaned over.

Just put one on the rear, too, replacing a 29 x 2.2 EXO to add some cush to my HT. Only have a couple rides in, but so far the 2.35 has taken the edge off the trail chatter nicely. Will have a better idea after a few longer rides, but the improved comfort seems worth the modest weight increase.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

That's pretty much what my 2.35 3C non-EXO tires weighed in at. 689 and 690.


----------



## TedS123 (Dec 2, 2009)

I should add that I have both f&r set up tubeless. Front on a Bontrager Duster with TLR rim strip; rear on a Flow. Set up was pretty easy.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## jamies9 (Dec 13, 2010)

Hey Guys,
I have 2 new 2.35 29ers for sale 50% retail


----------



## ccornacc (Mar 26, 2007)

Are they the EXO version?


----------



## jamies9 (Dec 13, 2010)

They are 3C maxx speed, lightest in the 2.35 range


----------



## kelstr (Jan 17, 2008)

I have to say that the 2.4 EXO ardent ft 29 and the 2.35 Ikon EXO rear 29 is a really good combo .

The 2.35 rear Ikon rolls so much better that the 2.3 ardent rear , the traction is not quite what the ardent was but overall its a much smoother faster tire !


----------



## Woodsy (Aug 15, 2005)

BruceBrown said:


> Did you try the Maxxis eStore?
> 
> Obviously, 2 different tires. The Renegade 2.3 is a big volume, very rounded profile XC tire that is light and quick, yet has plenty of traction for XC racing and riding. It has more minimal tread - especially the side lugs. The Ikon 2.35 is much more aggressive XC to even trail tire that is smack dab between an Ardent 2.4 and the Ikon 2.2. In terms of up front for sure footed handling, the Ikon tops the Renegade for cornering bite and braking bite. I've only run it up front as it is too aggressive for my needs in the rear. Although I would like to have it front and rear on my Karate Monkey singlespeed. The Renegade 2.3 is the largest volume minimal tread tire that I am aware of - so the contact patch and big volume provide the majority of the traction.
> 
> Both are excellent tires worth riding and racing for my needs.


Wondering if Bruce or others could say if the 2.35 Ikons and 2.3 Renegades compare volume & rolling resistance to a WTB 2.4 Mutano Raptor? I am running the 26" size. I'm always looking for the most possible volume for mixed & soft-sand conditions here. (I measure 3.0" clearance for both pairs of stays on my '12 Blur XC 

Also going to try at least a Blunt 35 rim next, even a Derby 26" if I can fund it, so I like the idea of tire with less pronounced side lugs that will be less-exaggerated by the 'tread-squaring' effect of very wide rims... have others experimented with using more rounded-tread profile tires to compensate for tire profile change on the wide rims?? Related thoughts/experience? TIA, and for all the great info here.


----------



## Orl1exm (Oct 22, 2011)

After reading this thread, I bought one Ikon 29x2.35 3c/EXO/TR. Now, I don't know whether to mount it front or rear. 2013 Nimble 9, RS 120mm RLT, 185lbs riding wt. Currently running a 2.25 NN on the front with a 2.25 Rocket Ron rear, both SS. Looking for more "cush" on the HT. Running tubeless. I like the NN on the front so far. Run a Bontrager XR4 on the front of my 5 Spot. Any suggestions? Front/Rear. If rear, keep the NN or go with something else. XC/Trail, pine straw covered trails, loose sand, and some hard pack depending where I ride.


----------



## Stopbreakindown (Jun 27, 2011)

2.35 Ikon rear / 2.4 Ardent Front :thumbsup:


Untitled by chadledge, on Flickr


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

I put an Ikon-2.35 on the front and was surprised how well it performed. I'm thinking of going front and rear with the Ikon[ 2.35 ] .


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Orl1exm said:


> After reading this thread, I bought one Ikon 29x2.35 3c/EXO/TR. Now, I don't know whether to mount it front or rear. 2013 Nimble 9, RS 120mm RLT, 185lbs riding wt. Currently running a 2.25 NN on the front with a 2.25 Rocket Ron rear, both SS. Looking for more "cush" on the HT. Running tubeless. I like the NN on the front so far. Run a Bontrager XR4 on the front of my 5 Spot. Any suggestions? Front/Rear. If rear, keep the NN or go with something else. XC/Trail, pine straw covered trails, loose sand, and some hard pack depending where I ride.


Tough call. I'd run the ikon on the rear, and keep the NN up front. If you feel like the rear tire has more cornering traction than the front, you'll need to find a more aggressive front tire.


----------



## Orl1exm (Oct 22, 2011)

Yeah, I'm leaning real hard, (pun intended), with the Ikon on the rear. I have a Michelin Wild Grip'r 2 that I want to try on the front when it dries out a little. Like the NN. Agree on if the rear is cornering, look for new front. Thanks bholwell.


----------



## clarkrw3 (Feb 21, 2011)

I'm running one on the front of my SS, at first it seemed to drift on loose over hard pack (desert riding). However, when I got the pressure dialed in they seem to stick like Velcro. Pretty happy so far.


----------



## GTscoob (Apr 27, 2009)

bholwell said:


> Tough call. I'd run the ikon on the rear, and keep the NN up front. If you feel like the rear tire has more cornering traction than the front, you'll need to find a more aggressive front tire.


This is exactly how I always felt running the 2.35 Ikon rear and 2.4" Ardent front. Tons of grip until you hit the funny transition on the Ardent and then the front tire would always wash out before the Ikon would start to drift. I'm mounting up a 2.3" High Roller 2 up front tomorrow and cant wait to see how that pairs with the rear Ikon.

Really wanted to go for the DHF but I've run 26" DHFs but never a High Roller 1 or 2.


----------



## Tickle (Dec 11, 2013)

Hey for those that like the Ikon/Ardent combo, give the Bontrager 29-4 a look up front. I would rate the 29-4 a better overall tire than the Ardent 2.4. The team issue version I have is lighter, little less volume at 2.3 but has better traction in loose cond's. 

I really like the 29-4 front/Ikon 2.35 rear combo on my hardtail, doubt I would buy another Ardent for front use.


----------



## Tree (Jan 27, 2004)

My current rims are Enve Xc's, would the Ikon 2.35 be to wide for these rims?

Can anyone list actual weights of the 2.2 and 2.35?

Thanks


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Tree said:


> My current rims are Enve Xc's, would the Ikon 2.35 be to wide for these rims?
> 
> Can anyone list actual weights of the 2.2 and 2.35?
> 
> Thanks


Which version of each are you looking for in terms of weight? Not trying to be smart with you, but there really are plenty of links for weights of both sizes.

The Maxxis weight specification chart is really quite accurate...


IkonWeights http://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/

I've got the non EXO versions of both the 2.2 and the 2.35.


----------



## Mr Pink57 (Jul 30, 2009)

Just ordered a 2.35 exo 3c for up front to replace the 2.4 ardent. Have a 2.2 ikon out back and used to have one up front, great set of tires really impressed with the 2.2s.


----------



## DirtDummy (Aug 22, 2005)

How is durability of TR/EXO Ikon 2.2 and/or 2.35 for rear use? I have recently killed an ignitor EXO and a conti X-king protection and need a tire to last more than a couple of months


----------



## JeroenK (Oct 3, 2005)

DirtDummy said:


> How is durability of TR/EXO Ikon 2.2 and/or 2.35 for rear use? I have recently killed an ignitor EXO and a conti X-king protection and need a tire to last more than a couple of months


What do you mean with durability? Better puncture protection or less wear?


----------



## Bailey44 (Dec 30, 2010)

Your tire profile won't be as good as if they were on a wide rim but it will still work just fine.


Tree said:


> My current rims are Enve Xc's, would the Ikon 2.35 be to wide for these rims?
> 
> Can anyone list actual weights of the 2.2 and 2.35?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

DirtDummy said:


> How is durability of TR/EXO Ikon 2.2 and/or 2.35 for rear use? I have recently killed an ignitor EXO and a conti X-king protection and need a tire to last more than a couple of months


If you're having issues with those tires, ikons wouldnt be a good choice for you


----------



## GTscoob (Apr 27, 2009)

DirtDummy said:


> How is durability of TR/EXO Ikon 2.2 and/or 2.35 for rear use? I have recently killed an ignitor EXO and a conti X-king protection and need a tire to last more than a couple of months


The 2.35 seemed like it had thicker sidewalls than the 2.2, both being EXO models.


----------



## DirtDummy (Aug 22, 2005)

JeroenK said:


> What do you mean with durability? Better puncture protection or less wear?


Both, but I've had relatively good sidewall performance with Maxxis EXO tires, so durability regarding tread wear is the information I'm after


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

Have run a 2.4 Ardent's EXO as a front off / on for 3 seasons, and find them to be very tough. Karma caught up to me last spring, and within two weeks I killed a Saguaro, a Race King, and an X-King. So, I put a 2.35 Ikon 3C EXO on the rear (rigid SS). 

The big Ikon has huge volume, and @ 27 psi great grip. No, it's not as light, or IMO rolls as fast, yet after 1100 + mi. has proven itself to be very durable, and the tread long lasting.


----------



## DirtDummy (Aug 22, 2005)

Flyin_W,

Great feedback - thanks. I'm gonna go with the 2.35


----------



## Tickle (Dec 11, 2013)

I've been surprised how well the tread has worn, when I installed it last June I figured I'd be lucky to get thru the fall given the small knobs and rear use but there's still plenty of knobbage left. I have another one that I will use on the rear when this one wears out.


----------



## B-RAY (Jul 15, 2004)

The tires rock! I had the 2.2 on the rear put a 2.35 not going back Ubber! Amazing tires!


----------



## dreich88 (May 13, 2012)

Anyone have an opinion on using the Ikon 2.35 on the front vs. Ardent 2.25 (which I currently run). I'm running an Ikon 2.2 on the rear and Ardent 2.25 on the front (29er hardtail) in super rocky Central PA (Rothrock State Forest). How does the traction compare (very important) and how does the rolling resistance compare (not terribly important)?


----------



## GTscoob (Apr 27, 2009)

dreich88 said:


> Anyone have an opinion on using the Ikon 2.35 on the front vs. Ardent 2.25 (which I currently run). I'm running an Ikon 2.2 on the rear and Ardent 2.25 on the front (29er hardtail) in super rocky Central PA (Rothrock State Forest). How does the traction compare (very important) and how does the rolling resistance compare (not terribly important)?


I've heard some locals say that the Ikon 2.35 is grippier than the 2.4 Ardent. I can attest to this at least having run the Ikon out back and the Ardent up front. That setup always seemed very imbalanced like the rear tire had more grip than the front in loose conditions. A 2.35 Ikon up front and 2.2 or 2.35 out back would be killer for a fast rolling setup as long as your riding isnt too loamy.


----------



## DirtDummy (Aug 22, 2005)

dreich88 said:


> Anyone have an opinion on using the Ikon 2.35 on the front vs. Ardent 2.25 (which I currently run). I'm running an Ikon 2.2 on the rear and Ardent 2.25 on the front (29er hardtail) in super rocky Central PA (Rothrock State Forest). How does the traction compare (very important) and how does the rolling resistance compare (not terribly important)?


Ikon 2.35 front is way better than Ardent 2.25 (I never liked and could never trust the 2.25 Ardent up front - the Ardent 2.4, however, is a great front tire)


----------



## clarkrw3 (Feb 21, 2011)

GTscoob said:


> I've heard some locals say that the Ikon 2.35 is grippier than the 2.4 Ardent. I can attest to this at least having run the Ikon out back and the Ardent up front. That setup always seemed very imbalanced like the rear tire had more grip than the front in loose conditions. A 2.35 Ikon up front and 2.2 or 2.35 out back would be killer for a fast rolling setup as long as your riding isnt too loamy.





DirtDummy said:


> Ikon 2.35 front is way better than Ardent 2.25 (I never liked and could never trust the 2.25 Ardent up front - the Ardent 2.4, however, is a great front tire)


I was going to say something similar. I think the 2.35 Ikon is better than the 2.25 Ardent as a front tire in all areas. Rolls better and corners better than 2.25 Ardent. Rolls better but doesn't have as good of traction in the loose as the 2.4 Ardent. I really have loved my 2.35 Ikon as a front tire, I will say lower pressure to get the grip on loose over hard.


----------



## rusty904 (Apr 25, 2008)

So I'm thinking about trying the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo a lot of people are having success with. I currently have a butcher 2.3 in the front and a purgatory 2.3 in the back. Grip from this combo is very good but they leave a little to be desired in terms of volume and rolling resistance. They are both right on 2.2" at the tread on my 23mm internal width rims. 

Anyway, how does the Ikon/Ardent combo work in higher speed situations? I was thinking of running it for the Pisgah Enduro. Kitsuma is the fastest stage and tends to be steep, fast, and dusty. I'm hoping the rolling resistance will make the climbing a bit easier without sacrificing too much grip at the limit. Anyone care to re-assure me?


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

Any of you racing with the 2.35 up front? Is it worth the weight penalty versus the 2.2?


----------



## clarkrw3 (Feb 21, 2011)

durkind said:


> Any of you racing with the 2.35 up front? Is it worth the weight penalty versus the 2.2?


I think so. Love it for the front


----------



## OxRocks (Sep 17, 2007)

This week I replaced the front tire from Ikon 2.25 (exo) to Ikon 2.35 (non-exo). I ride a steel rigid singlespeed. Rear tire is still Ikon 2.25 exo.
Con: 50 grams (=1.7 oz?) more weight (2.25 exo vs 2.35 non-exo, but ihmo not noticable...).
Pros: in comparison with the Ikon 2.25 the Ikon 2.35 has more cushion but with less deformation/twisting of the tire when you like to ride with lower pressure like I do. For me the result is an improved steering, more direct.
So, very happy so far. I am now thinking of replacing the rear tire also...


----------



## rob1035 (Apr 20, 2007)

Any long(er) term thoughts on this combo? I run an Ardent on the front of my rigid N9, looking for a new rear



Stopbreakindown said:


> 2.35 Ikon rear / 2.4 Ardent Front :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> Untitled by chadledge, on Flickr


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

rob1035 said:


> Any long(er) term thoughts on this combo? I run an Ardent on the front of my rigid N9, looking for a new rear


For the past year I've been running this combo.








(Ikon 2.35 r/ Ra-Ra 2.4 f)
With great results in all but real wet conditions. 1000+ mi, and still looks new.

(tapa)


----------



## Stopbreakindown (Jun 27, 2011)

rob1035 said:


> Any long(er) term thoughts on this combo? I run an Ardent on the front of my rigid N9, looking for a new rear


I have this set-up on two different bikes now. Lots of high desert miles ridden so the singletrack is mostly hard pack to sand or hard pack to loose rocks. Traction has been great on the climbs, going into the corners that have sand, the Ardent grabs and the large volume (front and rear) helps float over those short sandy sections. Happy camper.


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

Adding my 2-cents: I'm super happy with the Ikon 2.35's. My 29er (Turner Czar) came with 2.25 Nobby Nic's, which I did not love. I replaced both front and rear with Ikon 2.35's and I'm so happy I did. 

I was skeptical after first installing them because they are not *that* much bigger, and they have much smaller nobs. But I was happy after ride #1, and am still happy 2 months later.

The two main differences I notice are:

1) The Ikons are much better on wet-ish rocks and roots. I'm in the north-east and ride over ugly stuff all day long. I hated slippery rocks and roots with the NN's and was always ready (and expecting) to slip. The Ikons are much more confidence inspiring.

2) When the Ikons let go, the do so more progressively. My perception with NN's is that when the big nobs bite it's great, but when they lose traction they lose it big time. The Ikons seem to grep just as well, if not better, and when they let go it's much less dramatic so you have time to react.

I'm not putting the NN's back on any time soon, if ever. For races I might go Ikon 2.2 Rear, if not both front and rear.

Side note: I'm a relatively inexperienced mountain biker if that helps calibrate my review somehow. Maybe if I had talent I'd know how to make the NN's work better. But I love the added confidence I get from the Ikon's, and I don't see why that wouldn't help riders of all levels.


----------



## offrdmania (Nov 28, 2010)

I run the Ikon 2.2 in the rear and the High Roller II 2.3 in the front. I love this combo because everywhere I ride is sandy and loose gravel


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

Just mounted up my 2.35. Love it. It rubs my reba forkbrace on standing climbs. Kind of a bummer... I like it very much though..


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Gonzo 1971 said:


> Just mounted up my 2.35. Love it. It rubs my reba forkbrace on standing climbs. Kind of a bummer... I like it very much though..


Do you have super wide rims?


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

No, 28MM (outside Sun/Ringle charger expert) The wheel looks offset in the fork. That seems to be a common problem with Reba forks. I thought about grinding off the little guide "nipples" for the zip tie and increasing a little clearance. Not super bad, but you can notice a good buzz every once in a while. They are new wheels too, so I have not went over them with a spoke wrench yet. I am hoping between these two option I can make it work ok.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Gonzo 1971 said:


> No, 28MM (outside Sun/Ringle charger expert) The wheel looks offset in the fork. That seems to be a common problem with Reba forks. I thought about grinding off the little guide "nipples" for the zip tie and increasing a little clearance. Not super bad, but you can notice a good buzz every once in a while. They are new wheels too, so I have not went over them with a spoke wrench yet. I am hoping between these two option I can make it work ok.


Weird, my 2.35's have plenty of clearance in my Reba. But I have slightly narrower rims than yours (arch ex). I also noticed that the wheel was offset in my fork. I switched the wheel around backwards to see if it was wheel dish and it wasn't, so I just took a round file and filed the dropout a bit. Now it's perfectly centered! Worked for me, but do so with caution because I'm 99% sure this voids the warranty


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Gonzo 1971 said:


> No, 28MM (outside Sun/Ringle charger expert) The wheel looks offset in the fork. That seems to be a common problem with Reba forks. I thought about grinding off the little guide "nipples" for the zip tie and increasing a little clearance. Not super bad, but you can notice a good buzz every once in a while. They are new wheels too, so I have not went over them with a spoke wrench yet. I am hoping between these two option I can make it work ok.


QR or Maxle?

I don't have any trouble with tire rub on my Reba w/ 20mm Maxle and that is with 28mm Blunts.


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

Quick release. It only rubs when I stand up to hammer up a hill. I will get a pic


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)




----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Wow is that a tight squeeze! What year is the fork? Travel?

Mine looks like this. 100mm, quick release, 2013 solo air


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

2009. I git the bike as a left over. This is my second year with it.


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

No clearance problem there. Kinda bummed. I did contact Sram. They are being very helpful at this point. I sent them pics as well.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

Gonzo, Yes, that's tight. I had similar issues with an Ardent 2.4 on a P-35. Replaced the q/r with a hex bolt skewer, checked the dish, and added a tad more spoke tension. No more issues.

(tapa)


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

I will try a different skewer. 98% of the time it is fine. Might get spoke tension done tomorrow. After seing what the 29+ guys are doing to the arch, I think I could mod it and be fine.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

rusty904 said:


> So I'm thinking about trying the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo a lot of people are having success with. I currently have a butcher 2.3 in the front and a purgatory 2.3 in the back. Grip from this combo is very good but they leave a little to be desired in terms of volume and rolling resistance. They are both right on 2.2" at the tread on my 23mm internal width rims.
> 
> Anyway, how does the Ikon/Ardent combo work in higher speed situations? I was thinking of running it for the Pisgah Enduro. Kitsuma is the fastest stage and tends to be steep, fast, and dusty. I'm hoping the rolling resistance will make the climbing a bit easier without sacrificing too much grip at the limit. Anyone care to re-assure me?


Kinda late but that's the combo I ran at the Pisgah Enduro (and at the Trans-Sylvania Epic)

Begin quoting myself:

Bad Idea Racing: Things to Make Great Bike Race










"I ran the Ikon 2.35 with 3C Maxx Speed EXO TR, perhaps the most technological jargon and acronym laden tire in the Maxxis lineup, quite a bit this year. Up front with a squish-type Fjox fjork at PMBAR and the 111/55.5 and as a rear tire at the TSEpic and Pisgah Enduro™. It handled both duties with great aplomb, performing unexpectedly well in a myriad of conditions in Pisgah and providing a little extra cush and grip whilst riding amongst the rock strewn trails of Central PA.

No flats at TSEpic. That, in and of itself, is some kind of Christmas miracle."


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

That thing had more badges than an eagle scout!


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

Thanks for all the help. Went after the fork with the dremel today. End of problem. I do not feel I weakened the fork in any way. Same clearance on both sides. I am loving this tire. Enough that ordering the 2.2 for the front was not even a thought. I would have got a new fork first.


----------



## mike_mtn (Jan 31, 2012)

rusty904 said:


> So I'm thinking about trying the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo a lot of people are having success with. I currently have a butcher 2.3 in the front and a purgatory 2.3 in the back. Grip from this combo is very good but they leave a little to be desired in terms of volume and rolling resistance. They are both right on 2.2" at the tread on my 23mm internal width rims.
> 
> Anyway, how does the Ikon/Ardent combo work in higher speed situations? I was thinking of running it for the Pisgah Enduro. Kitsuma is the fastest stage and tends to be steep, fast, and dusty. I'm hoping the rolling resistance will make the climbing a bit easier without sacrificing too much grip at the limit. Anyone care to re-assure me?


rusty904 - just wondering if you went with the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo? If so, how do you like it and can you compare to the Butcher/Purg combo? If not, what did you go with? Thanks!


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

mike_mtn said:


> rusty904 - just wondering if you went with the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo? If so, how do you like it


I ripped one of my Ikons so I went Ardent 2.4 F / Ikon 2.35 R. I only have 1 ride but I liked it so far.

One thing I found moderately annoying is that my Ardent 2.4 is actually narrower than the Ikon 2.35, even after being mounted a week. The tread is certainly more aggressive, but it's a slightly narrower tire.


----------



## mike_mtn (Jan 31, 2012)

matto6 said:


> I ripped one of my Ikons so I went Ardent 2.4 F / Ikon 2.35 R. I only have 1 ride but I liked it so far.
> 
> One thing I found moderately annoying is that my Ardent 2.4 is actually narrower than the Ikon 2.35, even after being mounted a week. The tread is certainly more aggressive, but it's a slightly narrower tire.


That's interesting that the Ikon 2.35 is wider than the Ardent 2.4! What make and size diameter and width rims do you have?

Most of my riding is in the SF bay area where the Ikon probably would be great. My only concern with the IKON is climbing traction in Tahoe where it's very dry, loose and rocky.


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

mike_mtn said:


> That's interesting that the Ikon 2.35 is wider than the Ardent 2.4! What make and size diameter and width rims do you have?


I have 29er Enve AM's. 30mm outer, 24mm inner.

Here's another thread discussing the Ardent 2.4 width. It seems it varies from person to person:

http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/maxxis-ardent-2-4-very-narrow-compared-racing-ralph-590222.html


----------



## matto6 (Dec 28, 2013)

mike_mtn said:


> Good thread link, thanks. Are your Ardent and Ikon the EXO versions? I have a Ardent 29x2.4 EXO on my front and it's very large. If I go with an Ikon 2.35 rear it would also be an EXO, and would hope it would not be larger than the Ardent.


Yep, both are EXO.


----------



## mike_mtn (Jan 31, 2012)

matto6 said:


> I have 29er Enve AM's. 30mm outer, 24mm inner.
> 
> Here's another thread discussing the Ardent 2.4 width. It seems it varies from person to person:
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/29er-bikes/maxxis-ardent-2-4-very-narrow-compared-racing-ralph-590222.html


Good thread link, thanks. Are your Ardent and Ikon the EXO versions? I have a Ardent 29x2.4 EXO on my front and it's very large. If I go with an Ikon 2.35 rear it would also be an EXO, and would hope it would not be larger than the Ardent.


----------



## rusty904 (Apr 25, 2008)

mike_mtn said:


> rusty904 - just wondering if you went with the Ardent 2.4/Ikon 2.35 combo? If so, how do you like it and can you compare to the Butcher/Purg combo? If not, what did you go with? Thanks!


I tried out the Ardent/Ikon combo for a bit, not too bad bud not ideal. The ardent's tall, narrow edge knobs tend to squirm on me a bit when I really lean the bike over. It's a feeling a really don't like and it's amplified a bit because of the lack of any real transition knobs. No transition knobs are fine as long as there are nice stable cornering knobs to catch you (ie Minion, butcher). Ardent didn't give me that feeling. The big volume of the tire keeps it somewhat predictable and it rolls pretty well considering what a behemoth it is. Overall not terrible, but I wouldn't buy it again.

The big Ikon on the back is great, rolls quick and has pretty good bite in the corners. Good traction on the climbs too, especially over rock. Volume is such a big plus. It runs great at about 25PSI. I only found it lacking a bit in braking but that's to be expected in a tire of this type. Also it's a bit scary in wet conditions.

The race was pretty wet so I went with the butcher/purg combo. Fantastic tire setup. Probably the best all around combo for aggressive riding I've tried. The purg is a bit of a slow roller on the back but the Ikon may have spoiled me for speed. Also, I wish they were true to size. They are more like true 2.2's rather than 2.3's.

I ended up leaving the butcher/purg on my FS bike and the big Ikon moved to the front of my yelli screamy and I paired it up with a 2.2" Ikon out back. Perfect fast, drifty setup for my local trails here in the foothills. I'll go with more aggressive setup next time I'm in the mountains.


----------



## mike_mtn (Jan 31, 2012)

rusty904 said:


> I tried out the Ardent/Ikon combo for a bit, not too bad bud not ideal. The ardent's tall, narrow edge knobs tend to squirm on me a bit when I really lean the bike over. It's a feeling a really don't like and it's amplified a bit because of the lack of any real transition knobs. No transition knobs are fine as long as there are nice stable cornering knobs to catch you (ie Minion, butcher). Ardent didn't give me that feeling. The big volume of the tire keeps it somewhat predictable and it rolls pretty well considering what a behemoth it is. Overall not terrible, but I wouldn't buy it again.
> 
> The big Ikon on the back is great, rolls quick and has pretty good bite in the corners. Good traction on the climbs too, especially over rock. Volume is such a big plus. It runs great at about 25PSI. I only found it lacking a bit in braking but that's to be expected in a tire of this type. Also it's a bit scary in wet conditions.
> 
> ...


Agreed on the Purg 2.3 size really more like a 2.2. I had the previous version Purg 2.2 and the widths are the same. The knobs are larger on the 2.3 however so it's a little heavier and it rolls slower than the 2.2. But traction is fantastic as a rear tire. Appreciate your input on the Butcher, I will consider it as my front Ardent 2.4 wears out. I felt the same as you did regarding Ardent stability when I first got mine, and lowering psi to 16 helped. Or I just got used to it. I do like being able to run the low pressure and I like the volume of the Ardent, two things I might miss having with a Butcher, but traction would probably be more consistent.

Your yelli screamy sounds like a blast.

Good to know that the Ikon 2.35 rolls well and has good climbing traction as a rear tire. I am thinking about switching my Purg for the Ikon. Wet conditions won't happen here in NorCal for awhile and I expected braking to not be as strong as the Purg. I enjoy climbing out of the saddle on a FS 29er. Do you know if the Ikon 2.35 is close to the Purg in climbing traction in very dry, loose and steep (30%+) conditions? Thanks for all your input.


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

Does anyone know if this beast will fit a Reba? I found more than one person claiming the 2.4 ardent rubbed their reba badly.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Sickmak90 said:


> Does anyone know if this beast will fit a Reba? I found more than one person claiming the 2.4 ardent rubbed their reba badly.


I run a 2.35 ikon in my 2013 Reba with plenty of clearance. I posted pics earlier in this thread


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

^See post 141 in this thread


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

8iking VIIking said:


> I run a 2.35 ikon in my 2013 Reba with plenty of clearance. I posted pics earlier in this thread


Sweet, same year Reba I am running. I may go ahead and try the IKON 2.35 as a front tire. Gave up running Nevegals...tired of sucking wind on the climbs.

So these roll fast even at 760g for the 3c exo version?


----------



## TXDirtDawg (Nov 17, 2004)

Freshly mounted on a Stan's rapid it's a pretty big tire


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

Is that on the rear?


----------



## TXDirtDawg (Nov 17, 2004)

Yes here is the front


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

Let me know how rock/root traction is if you can. I'm on the fence between these or ardents.


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

Rock traction is great. Not bad on roots either. You will slide on a slippery roots if you hit at enough angle. Then again any tire will. These have never done anything really scary/stupid. When you push them past the limit they let go predictabley. While not a mud tire they do well in "day after the rain" type mud. the floatation of the Ikon in sand is the best I have personally experienced. I am wishing I put a 2.35 on the back too. I was afraid of clearance issues. On worn in mtb trail they are like a cat on carpet for me. I really dont think you will have any regrets.


----------



## Sickmak90 (May 27, 2012)

I'll probably try a 2.35 front and 2.2 rear, as I don't think the 2.35 will clear the back of my 2013 x-caliber.


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

You will be happy. Cushy front!


----------



## TXDirtDawg (Nov 17, 2004)

Gonzo 1971 said:


> You will be happy. Cushy front!


My rear one ended up being bigger than the front once they stretched out a bit. I'll have to swap them in the morning before I ride


----------



## GlazedHam (Jan 14, 2004)

Just another datapoint. On lightbike 35 OD carbon rims, run Ardent 2.5 upfront and Ikon 2.35 outback for 7 months on my ti softtail. I switched the Ikon 2.35 to the front and put a Rocket Ron 2.25 (?) on the back to save some weight. I ride rock, loose rock, scrabble over hard pack and generally dry, dusty trails. 

The Rocket Ron was so atrocious on hard cornering I never noticed what was going on up front with Ikon replacing the Ardent. I couldn't tell if it was tire pressure, squirmy side knobs or lack of side bite due to my wider than normal rims. 

So with limited testing, I'm going to say the Ikon 2.35 is fine up front for loose conditions. BTW ...front 20-22 PSI. Back 26-28


----------



## HuffyMan (Oct 19, 2005)

I ran Ikon 2.35s front and rear on my 29'er hardtail today for the first time. It felt nice. Definitely good cushion that rolled very well. No issues on rocks, roots, gravel and dirt, but it wasn't the most hardcore day of riding.


----------



## TXDirtDawg (Nov 17, 2004)

So I got a good ride in on mine and I have to say they are just perfect. Fast rolling but hook up on everything loose over hard pack, float in sand and small rocks. I'm running 22lbs front and 24lbs rear and they are not squirmy which is surprising cause I'm 215lbs


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

How low can I go? I have 2.35 Ikons tubeless front and rear on 35mm outer width cf rims. I've ridden them as low as 16 psi front and 17 rear without problems but this was where there are no rocks. Yesterday I rode some intermediate rocky terrain and was wishing I could get away with lower pressure than the 18 front and 20 rear I had. I weigh 175 geared and my bike is a carbon hard tail. 
I don't get air and I ride over rocks conservatively and I don't corner hard enough to burp. I think my 35mm wide rims also make burping unlikely and they add a little volume to the tires. How little pressure can I get away with? 16 or 17 in front and 18 rear feels ideal but I don't want to crack one of my new cf rims.
Thanks!


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

I run 25 front and 28 rear. I really like them there. They got squirmy below that for me. I rode at 15 psi front and rear once. Just because I did not check pressure pre ride Really, not to bad a little squirmy and the traction in hard corners were sketchy. I was really suprised how they handled in spite of the low pressure. 20 - 25 is as low as I wohld go on purpose though.


----------



## csmo (Aug 11, 2012)

Hi All,

Quick question (and sorry if it's been answered): I just got a 3C/maxx speed/EXO 2.35 Ikon. It is NOT tubeless ready, i.e it's not stamped TR on the sidewall. Any issues mounting it tubeless? I'm gonna put it on a Surly Rabbit Hole that's now got a Chunky Monkey that I mounted tubeless using a split tube. 

Just want to see what others have experienced regarding the non TR Ikon.

Thanks!


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

csmo said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Quick question (and sorry if it's been answered): I just got a 3C/maxx speed/EXO 2.35 Ikon. It is NOT tubeless ready, i.e it's not stamped TR on the sidewall. Any issues mounting it tubeless? I'm gonna put it on a Surly Rabbit Hole that's now got a Chunky Monkey that I mounted tubeless using a split tube.
> 
> ...


You can pretty much set up any tire tubeless.

Non tubeless tires usually don't have as strong a bead.

I ran the non TR EXO Ikon and Ardent tubeless without issue.


----------



## csmo (Aug 11, 2012)

Thanks! That's what I was hoping to hear. The Chunky Monkey on there now is not TR nor is the Rabbit Hole rim and they're doing great. Thanks again



mtnbikej said:


> You can pretty much set up any tire tubeless.
> 
> Non tubeless tires usually don't have as strong a bead.
> 
> I ran the non TR EXO Ikon and Ardent tubeless without issue.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

dugt said:


> How low can I go? I have 2.35 Ikons tubeless front and rear on 35mm outer width cf rims. I've ridden them as low as 16 psi front and 17 rear without problems but this was where there are no rocks. Yesterday I rode some intermediate rocky terrain and was wishing I could get away with lower pressure than the 18 front and 20 rear I had. I weigh 175 geared and my bike is a carbon hard tail.
> I don't get air and I ride over rocks conservatively and I don't corner hard enough to burp. I think my 35mm wide rims also make burping unlikely and they add a little volume to the tires. How little pressure can I get away with? 16 or 17 in front and 18 rear feels ideal but I don't want to crack one of my new cf rims.
> Thanks!


I find that the EXO versions of Maxxis tires don't like to be run at high pressure.

At 180-185 lbs, the Ardent Race TR/EXO felt like concrete above 24 lbs. It would get really squirmy at about 18 lbs. 20-22 was the sweet spot.

Same with the Ardent 2.4 Exo

Whereas the non EXO Ardent 2.25 was perfectly happy around 26-29 psi.


----------



## csmo (Aug 11, 2012)

Good to know--thanks. I have an Ardent Exo on the front of one bike and run it around 20-22. I'm about 10 pounds lighter. It does very well. I am going to run the Ikon on the rear of my Jones and will fiddle with pressures to see how low I can go, but anywhere from 17-20 will make me happy. Keep in mind this is on a 50mm rim that spreads tires out considerably.

Very informative thread, by the way.



mtnbikej said:


> I find that the EXO versions of Maxxis tires don't like to be run at high pressure.
> 
> At 180-185 lbs, the Ardent Race TR/EXO felt like concrete above 24 lbs. It would get really squirmy at about 18 lbs. 20-22 was the sweet spot.
> 
> ...


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> I find that the EXO versions of Maxxis tires don't like to be run at high pressure.
> 
> At 180-185 lbs, the Ardent Race TR/EXO felt like concrete above 24 lbs. It would get really squirmy at about 18 lbs. 20-22 was the sweet spot.
> 
> ...


I second this. The exo versions have pretty stiff sidewalls so they like lower pressures than non-reinforced sidewall tires. I've found my 2.35 ikon exo on the front performs best at around 22 psi on my 21mm rims (180 lb rider)


----------



## dugt (May 26, 2012)

Thanks for the replies about Ikon air pressure. I'm really glad no one had a good reason for me to use much higher pressure. My Ikon's are EXO also so I will keep them around 19-20 psi.
dt


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

Like Stan's recomends. Weight divided by 7 equals starting point. Minus one psi front, plus two rear. Then adjust to taste.


----------



## csmo (Aug 11, 2012)

I mounted my Ikon last night, split-tube tubeless to a 50mm Surly Rabbit Hole. I used a CO2 and the tire aired right up. Pumped it with the floor pump and the bead popped. All went smoothly. I lost a little air over the night. But I pumped it up, took it for a ride, and things seem to be holding for now. As for the ride: wow! What a difference b/w the Chunky Monkey and the 2.35 Ikon. My Jones felt like a rocket.


----------



## kragu (Jun 14, 2011)

Anyone running the Ikon out back on a longer travel bike? WFO, Enduro 29, Carbine, Lunchbox? I'm running dual ChMonks and love the grip, but I'm looking to get something that rolls a tad better as a second option. I'd hope to not give up too much grip...


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Bholwell had one on the back of his Prime. I've debated it on mine, too.when I get a 2nd pair of wheels, I probably will.


----------



## rusty904 (Apr 25, 2008)

kragu said:


> Anyone running the Ikon out back on a longer travel bike? WFO, Enduro 29, Carbine, Lunchbox? I'm running dual ChMonks and love the grip, but I'm looking to get something that rolls a tad better as a second option. I'd hope to not give up too much grip...


I use one on the back of my Process 111. It's not a long travel bike but I definitely ride it like one. Lift access on Beech MTN, Pisgah downhills, etc. I'd say the Ikon will give you plenty of grip in dry conditions. You loose out some in braking grip mostly. Any you have to be ready to slide around a bit. I personally love it paired up with a grippy front tire. Like I said in an earlier post, I think the massive volume makes the sliding very predictable.


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

I run an Ikon 2:35 on th back of my TBLTc and I think it grips well, not super grippy but considering the rolling resistance and light weight. I run a Butcher up front and the back stays put .


----------



## ACLakey (Jul 7, 2012)

I ran one with a 2.5 minion on the front. It did fine in everything except for steep loose downhills. Rolls very fast. 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## TXDirtDawg (Nov 17, 2004)

Running them both front and rear in south Texas and it's my favorite tire thus far. Lots of volume good grip and speed. 

If anyone needs a pair of racing Ralph's with 20 miles on them pm me


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

evasive said:


> Bholwell had one on the back of his Prime. I've debated it on mine, too.when I get a 2nd pair of wheels, I probably will.


I'm still rockin it, too. I have yet to find a better combination of speed and grip for most of the riding I do.


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

How do these compare to an Ardent as a REAR tire only? I'm running a DHF up front so that might be a little wonky, just exploring all options.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 29, 2011)

I'm currently riding a Salsa El-Mariachi with rigid cromoto fork. I have a Schable Nobby Nic 2.25 @ 24psi Front and a Maxxis Crossmark 2.10 @ 28psi Rear. I'm around 200lbs with riding kit and camelbak. 
This feels good but now Mud is starting to appear the Crossmark is very slippy. I'm thinking I'll put a 2.35 Ikon on the front and move the Nobby Nic to the rear. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I'm currently riding a Salsa El-Mariachi with rigid cromoto fork. I have a Schable Nobby Nic 2.25 @ 24psi Front and a Maxxis Crossmark 2.10 @ 28psi Rear. I'm around 200lbs with riding kit and camelbak.
> This feels good but now Mud is starting to appear the Crossmark is very slippy. I'm thinking I'll put a 2.35 Ikon on the front and move the Nobby Nic to the rear. Any thoughts on this?


I wouldn't... Can't imagine the ikon being very good in mud and having a slippery front is a lot more concerning than in the rear.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> This feels good but now Mud is starting to appear the Crossmark is very slippy. I'm thinking I'll put a 2.35 Ikon on the front and move the Nobby Nic to the rear. Any thoughts on this?


I would do the exact opposite. NN front Ikon rear, or NN f&r.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 29, 2011)

Thoughts received loud and clear (thank you) Some re-thinking happening this end.


----------



## bikeboardorblade (Jun 19, 2011)

bholwell said:


> View attachment 920579
> 
> 
> I'm still rockin it, too. I have yet to find a better combination of speed and grip for most of the riding I do.


bhowell, is that a DHF mounted in reverse up front? Care to share your thoughts on it?


----------



## GlazedHam (Jan 14, 2004)

Gonzo 1971 said:


> Like Stan's recomends. Weight divided by 7 equals starting point. Minus one psi front, plus two rear. Then adjust to taste.


Suprisingly accurate form me!


----------



## Gonzo 1971 (Apr 9, 2013)

I have noticed with the 2.35. That 5 psi less in the front compared to the 2.2 rear works well.


----------



## Sf100al (May 21, 2014)

I am using the 2.35 Ikon front and back on loose, dry conditions(san diego). These tires are a great deal better than the stock tires on my bike (2013 trek superbly al 100 elite). These tires, for me, are perfect for my conditions. I would highly recommend these tire. Also, I found them cheap on amazon(if price matters).


----------



## Haggis (Jan 21, 2004)

bikeboardorblade said:


> bhowell, is that a DHF mounted in reverse up front? Care to share your thoughts on it?


Also looks like an Ardent on the rear, not an Ikon... I run an Ikon 2.35 on my hardtail front and an Ikon 2.2 on the rear, excellent combo for most conditions, just not as much grip as you want in deep loose stuff (who'da thought). I run a clipped DHR2 (27.5) on the front of my bouncy bike and find it works great in all conditions (we get mud, clay, dust, gravel). Easily as good as the DHF.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

bikeboardorblade said:


> bhowell, is that a DHF mounted in reverse up front? Care to share your thoughts on it?


That's the way I usually see it mounted, with the center block sipes pointed towards the center and the L-shaped corner knobs' wide part forward. It has slight ramps on the leading edge of the knobs mounted in this direction, for faster rolling. As Haggis pointed out, that does look like an Ardent rear tire in the pic.

I'm running a Ikon 2.2 rear, but had to downsize my rotor to 160mm since it was breaking loose too easily with 180s. This thread gives me the impression that a 2.35 might suit my bike better and would've been okay with the 180 rotors, but I find the 2.2 is good enough to keep on to wear out.

Found a good image of some of the tires mentioned in this thread here (click). Can see the visual differences between the TR casings and the eXCeption casing (Ikon 2.35, 3rd from left) as well, such as the bead and how smooth and dense the sidewalls look.


----------



## agoura_biker (Jun 6, 2004)

Sf100al said:


> I am using the 2.35 Ikon front and back on loose, dry conditions(san diego). These tires are a great deal better than the stock tires on my bike (2013 trek superbly al 100 elite). These tires, for me, are perfect for my conditions. I would highly recommend these tire. Also, I found them cheap on amazon(if price matters).


I ride in the LA area, so probably similar conditions. These tires sound great. I looked at Amazon, but don't know what is the best option. eXc? EXO? 3C? All of the above? (Why do tire manufacturers have to use all those acronyms???)


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Plenty of options to choose from, beyond tread pattern and size:

Casing: standard, eXC, TR, LUST/UST, 2-ply DH specific
Compound: single compound, dual compound, 3c (triple compound), super tacky
Bead: wire, folding
Additional feature: EXO (sidewall protection), Silkworm (puncture protection)

Head explode yet? This is just a portion of the options that you'd see just shopping mtn bike tires.

I ride many different parts of SoCal and I'd spring for the 3c/EXO/TR version, for more reliable tubeless and lower risk of sidewall cuts.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

agoura_biker said:


> I ride in the LA area, so probably similar conditions. These tires sound great. I looked at Amazon, but don't know what is the best option. eXc? EXO? 3C? All of the above? (Why do tire manufacturers have to use all those acronyms???)


It all depends on your trails and if you intend to set the tire up tubeless. 3C and exc from Maxxis are the same thing I believe. If you aren't prone to sidewall cuts, I would go EXO rear and non EXO front. If you are, EXO both. Use TR if you plan on running tubeless.


----------



## agoura_biker (Jun 6, 2004)

8iking VIIking said:


> It all depends on your trails and if you intend to set the tire up tubeless. 3C and exc from Maxxis are the same thing I believe. If you aren't prone to sidewall cuts, I would go EXO rear and non EXO front. If you are, EXO both. Use TR if you plan on running tubeless.


Great advice, thanks! I will go tubeless (using UST rims). I've been riding tires with pretty sidewalls with no problems (I probably just jinxed myself there), so maybe try the non-EXO.


----------



## agoura_biker (Jun 6, 2004)

Varaxis said:


> Plenty of options to choose from, beyond tread pattern and size:
> 
> Casing: standard, eXC, TR, LUST/UST, 2-ply DH specific
> Compound: single compound, dual compound, 3c (triple compound), super tacky
> ...


This is great, thanks! I've just sorted out Schwalbe's codes, so this really helps for the Ikon!


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

agoura_biker said:


> Great advice, thanks! I will go tubeless (using UST rims). I've been riding tires with pretty sidewalls with no problems (I probably just jinxed myself there), so maybe try the non-EXO.


You might still wanna go with an exo rear. The ikons are xc race tires, so personally I wouldn't run a non exo rear unless on race day or maybe if you ride some really benign trails. It adds a little weight but the headache saved from sidewall tears is well worth it IMO


----------



## Haggis (Jan 21, 2004)

8iking VIIking said:


> You might still wanna go with an exo rear. The ikons are xc race tires, so personally I wouldn't run a non exo rear unless on race day or maybe if you ride some really benign trails. It adds a little weight but the headache saved from sidewall tears is well worth it IMO


+1 - and less squirm at normal pressures. Annoying having to raise pressure because sidewalls are flimsy...


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

I'll be picking up my Tallboy tomorrow with some band new Ibis 941 rims and Ikon 2.35 front and rear. My previous rims were Stan's Crests with Maxxis Ignitor 2.1 tires. I was running low 20's for pressure. At 165lbs, what would be a good starting pressure since I now have wider rims?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Kuttermax (Sep 4, 2011)

On my Enve AMs I run around 21psi and am 172lb without gear. 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

thecanoe said:


> I'll be picking up my Tallboy tomorrow with some band new Ibis 941 rims and Ikon 2.35 front and rear. My previous rims were Stan's Crests with Maxxis Ignitor 2.1 tires. I was running low 20's for pressure. At 165lbs, what would be a good starting pressure since I now have wider rims?


You can start at 4-5 less than your previous with a given tire. Check for rim hits and adjust.
15/19 could work.


----------



## agoura_biker (Jun 6, 2004)

Haggis said:


> +1 - and less squirm at normal pressures. Annoying having to raise pressure because sidewalls are flimsy...


You and 8iking Viking make compelling arguments for the EXO! Thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

Just put the EXO on some new Ibis 941 carbon rims. But it's raining out. So not trail test today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

That slime for tubes in your pic is for putting into tubes for your alternate/secondary bike(s), right?


----------



## PauLCa916 (Jul 1, 2013)

Varaxis said:


> That slime for tubes in your pic is for putting into tubes for your alternate/secondary bike(s), right?


I was wondering the same thing earlier. 
Then I thought it looks like a LBS shelf or he is stocked up on slime.


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

LBS shelf. Mine is set up with Stan's. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mike_mtn (Jan 31, 2012)

thecanoe said:


> Just put the EXO on some new Ibis 941 carbon rims. But it's raining out. So not trail test today.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


thecanoe - what are your riding impressions of your new rims and tires?


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

I have 4 rides now on New England trails. I am totally impressed. Best upgrade and money that I've spent in recent years. I'm so impressed that I haven't ridden my fat bike since getting these. It's almost like a 29+. I've settle on 15psi and traction is unreal. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin+M (Feb 15, 2009)

Do you have a caliper to measure the tire width? Curious to what size the already massive Ikon 2.35 grows to on the 941.

Thanks!


----------



## mike_mtn (Jan 31, 2012)

thecanoe said:


> I have 4 rides now on New England trails. I am totally impressed. Best upgrade and money that I've spent in recent years. I'm so impressed that I haven't ridden my fat bike since getting these. It's almost like a 29+. I've settle on 15psi and traction is unreal.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thanks. Can you compare acceleration to your old set up? And are you using 15psi in the rear too?


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

Colin+M said:


> Do you have a caliper to measure the tire width? Curious to what size the already massive Ikon 2.35 grows to on the 941.
> 
> Thanks!


At the widest point the tire is 60mm's.

And yes, I'm running 15lbs front and rear.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

mike_mtn said:


> Thanks. Can you compare acceleration to your old set up? And are you using 15psi in the rear too?


At 66 y/o, I don't worry about acceleration too much. What I do notice is
1) a much smoother ride
2) slow speed stability is close to that of my fat bike.
3) everyone says " your tires are massive"

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

thecanoe said:


> At 66 y/o, I don't worry about acceleration too much. What I do notice is
> 1) a much smoother ride
> 2) slow speed stability is close to that of my fat bike.
> 3) everyone says " your tires are massive"
> ...


Props to you for riding at 66! I hope I'm able to ride at that age. And thanks for the feedback


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

thecanoe said:


> 3) everyone says " your tires are massive"


Ha, you get used to em. These seemed pretty big to me for a bit, and I was coming off of 2.3 Renegades. Now they just seem normal. I'm running the non exo's on my Stumpjumper HT at around 17 per tire and they are perfect. I ride in rocky areas too, but they do fine as long as I take lines that go 'over' rather than 'around'. You don't schralp up the back tire so much that way.


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

rusty904 said:


> I use one on the back of my Process 111. It's not a long travel bike but I definitely ride it like one. Lift access on Beech MTN, Pisgah downhills, etc. I'd say the Ikon will give you plenty of grip in dry conditions. You loose out some in braking grip mostly. Any you have to be ready to slide around a bit. I personally love it paired up with a grippy front tire. Like I said in an earlier post, I think the massive volume makes the sliding very predictable.


Hey rusty904, so how was clearance on the back of your Kona with the 2.35? I am thinking about getting a set of 2.35s for my weekly XC race, I have Trail Kings 2.2s now which are great but a bit too much for that. They are 57.2 mm casing compared to 58-59 on the Ikons but I am wondering if they are taller than the TKs. That would be a problem. Thx


----------



## thecanoe (Jan 30, 2007)

8iking VIIking said:


> Props to you for riding at 66! I hope I'm able to ride at that age. And thanks for the feedback


Thanks,
I just past 2000 miles for the year.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ohiorick (Feb 1, 2012)

Any one know if this tire will fit on the rear of a 2012 Santa Cruz Highball? I'm running Maxis Aspens 2.1 now and I think the added width will be ok, just wondering about the height clearance. Its time for some tires and these sound like a great way to add a bit of squish to this hardtail.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

The Ikon 29 x 2.35 is a big volume tire every bit as big as an Ardent 2.4.








...sent by dixie cup/string


----------



## B888S (Feb 18, 2013)

I just put one of these on the rear of my Stumpjumper FSR and paired it with an Ardent 2.4 on the front. I am running it tubeless, have about 60 miles on it, and am very happy with its performance so far. It rolls relatively well, has good traction, and lots of volume. Just need to see how long it lasts.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Flyin_W said:


> The Ikon 29 x 2.35 is a big volume tire every bit as big as an Ardent 2.4.


Just measured an Ikon 2.3 and Ardent 2.4 on 23mm rims and the Ikon is fractionally wider in the tread and carcass.


----------



## seat_boy (May 16, 2006)

That's surprising, since I measured my Ikon 2.35 closer to a 2.25, and that on a Blunt 35 rim. I was pretty disappointed it was so small... my Vee Mission 2.4 is noticeably fatter.



NordieBoy said:


> Just measured an Ikon 2.3 and Ardent 2.4 on 23mm rims and the Ikon is fractionally wider in the tread and carcass.


----------



## checocc (Sep 15, 2005)

how does it compares to the specialized fast trak? i think is one of the best 29er tire for the rear, light, fast, and very gripy for such small knobs even in wet conditions. does the ikon match that kind of performance?


----------



## smithcreek (Nov 27, 2012)

seat_boy said:


> That's surprising, since I measured my Ikon 2.35 closer to a 2.25, and that on a Blunt 35 rim. I was pretty disappointed it was so small... my Vee Mission 2.4 is noticeably fatter.


That's surprising, since I measured my Ikon at 2.30" on a Haven 21mm (internal) rim. I was impressed it was almost what it claimed to be on the casing.


----------



## GlazedHam (Jan 14, 2004)

checocc said:


> how does it compares to the specialized fast trak? i think is one of the best 29er tire for the rear, light, fast, and very gripy for such small knobs even in wet conditions. does the ikon match that kind of performance?


Funny I just replaced the Ikon 29x2.35 rear with a FastTrak 2.3 specifically to do any XC race. I did one other ride on a trail you might call a "fast track" and pulled it back off.

The FastTrak doesn't have the volume of the IKon. The XC race was on some reasonable technical trails and I had no issues at 22psi on 35mm OD LB rims. Not really super loose corners though. I was pretty happy with them being light tires.
Next ride was an hour each way to the trial for a 45 minute offroad ride so I kept the pressure at 35. They sucked at this PSI. Sliding all over the place but I know that trail well so just went with it. 
The Fastrak compares more to the Ikin 2.2 IMHO


----------



## Colin+M (Feb 15, 2009)

seat_boy said:


> That's surprising, since I measured my Ikon 2.35 closer to a 2.25, and that on a Blunt 35 rim. I was pretty disappointed it was so small... my Vee Mission 2.4 is noticeably fatter.


You must have gotten a dud. My 2.35's are huge.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

No doubt. The 2.35 Ikon TR Exo is a huge tire. I like it, say, on a single speed as it spins up nicely and isn't too heavy. Wouldn't run it on a suspension or bigger travel bike personally.


----------



## CrimsonCountry (Jul 14, 2011)

I've been running one on the back of my Stumpy Evo 29 for 2 months and I love it! The volume is great and and it has a nice, predictable break in corners (at least IMO). I have it paired with a 2.5" DHF right now. I was pleasantly suprised to see that it isn't completely "dwarfed" in size by the DHF. I may switch to a lighter front tire for the summer trails but I'll be keeping the ikon out back.


----------



## bikeboardorblade (Jun 19, 2011)

I'm looking at getting either the Ikon 2.35 or Ardent Race 2.2, both Exo, as a back tire for my SB66, paired with a Minion DHF up front. I ride all over Utah, what do you guys think?


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

bikeboardorblade said:


> I'm looking at getting either the Ikon 2.35 or Ardent Race 2.2, both Exo, as a back tire for my SB66, paired with a Minion DHF up front. I ride all over Utah, what do you guys think?


I've done dhf/ardent before. Not an ardent race or an ikon though. Planning on using dhf/ardent again this summer


----------



## Kuttermax (Sep 4, 2011)

I decided to start on the season here in Ohio with the 2.35 Ikons front and rear on my Rip 9 RDO. I got a 25 mile ride in last weekend on cool, occasionally damp conditions. The trail (Mohican) has a lot of roots and some rocks. Big Ikons provided ample traction and the large size was certainly confidence inspiring. There were a couple muddy spots on the trail and these don't shed mud that well, so would not be the best in areas where there is a lot of mud.

I've run a few different tire combo's on the bike including 2.35 Nobby Nics F/R and Minnions F/R. For now I'm going to stick with the 2.35 Ikons on this bike and see how it goes.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

Blatant said:


> No doubt. The 2.35 Ikon TR Exo is a huge tire. I like it, say, on a single speed as it spins up nicely and isn't too heavy. Wouldn't run it on a suspension or bigger travel bike personally.


I'm running the 2.35 Ikon TR/Exo/3C on the rear at 130mm suspension travel, and for the mixture of hardpack, loose-over-hard, light clay-laden mud, and pavement I run it on that tire has been phenomenal. I have installed a sharp rock right through the treaded section of the casing (taking my 235lb self, 30lb bike, 10lb of gear) trying to monster truck wheelie through jagged rock gardens at 30mph, but once Stan's did it's thing that tire has been peerless.

On my 20.3mm internal width Inferno25's, , the 2.35 Ikon is about 2mm narrower than my 2.4 Ardents up front. All told, the combined low rolling resistance, reasonable weight (considering what I'm asking of them), and solid straight line traction with predictable breakaway is just amazing.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Cool. I'm running it on the rear on my SS and it's pretty good overall in that application for trails here in Phoenix. I have run it on a bigger-travel bike and didn't really like it as much, particularly for steeper climbs and hard turning. I found, on the FS bike, it broke traction before I was expecting, but that's just my experience.

I'm currently running a Slaughter Grid rear on my FS bike. Similar concept, but huge cornering knobs that dig in when leaned over. Nowhere near the volume of the Ikon, though, which is why I like it on the SS.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Been using the Ikon 2.35 on the rear and Ardent 2.25 on the front of my Kona Unit hard tail SS.

Breaking loose in the rear a little earlier than I'd like when climbing.
Moved the Ikon 2.35 to the front and put an Ikon 2.2 on the rear.

More cush and less deflection with the wider front and seemed to be a little more traction from the narrower rear.

Next to try, is an Ardent Race on the back.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

To me this tire really is the perfect front tire for an xc bike. I've used it in both desert (utah) and forest (minnesota) conditions and its been awesome. Great traction and volume in a reasonably light package. I'd imagine itd be a good back tire on a more downhill oriented bike, but up front you'd probably want something beefier


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

8iking VIIking said:


> To me this tire really is the perfect front tire for an xc bike. I've used it in both desert (utah) and forest (minnesota) conditions and its been awesome. Great traction and volume in a reasonably light package. I'd imagine itd be a good back tire on a more downhill oriented bike, but up front you'd probably want something beefier


I usually use a DHF up front and DHR2 rear during fall/winter and Ardent rear during sprint/summer. Debating whether or not I should give the Ikon a try instead of the Ardent.


----------



## Pac8541 (Mar 23, 2015)

Is there an ideal internal rim width, or a "best range", for the Ikon 2.35?


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

You dude, got a dud, my 2.35 Ikon casing is about the same size as the 2.4" Ardent I have, was very surprised when I got it and mounted it up, couldn't believe how big it was.


seat_boy said:


> That's surprising, since I measured my Ikon 2.35 closer to a 2.25, and that on a Blunt 35 rim. I was pretty disappointed it was so small... my Vee Mission 2.4 is noticeably fatter.


Not sure, but I've run it on an old Flow, WTB i25 and now Velocity Dually45 and it's worked well on all, but honestly love it on the Dually, it's massive to say the least and notice much better climbing and braking traction on the Dually compared to the i25, this is on a rigid KM. 


Pac8541 said:


> Is there an ideal internal rim width, or a "best range", for the Ikon 2.35?


----------



## Tickle (Dec 11, 2013)

I run this tire on the rear of my hardtail and it's nice, not enough knobbage for front use at least around here. I bought 2 of these tires last year and installed the second one recently and it was at least 100g heavier than the first.


----------



## Pac8541 (Mar 23, 2015)

Thanks LyNx, I'm considering these on either a Sun Ringle Black Flag or Charger and there's just over 3mm's (I think) difference between the 2 internally. They're going on a SIR 9.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

They run well on WTB i23's, so anything wider would be even moar betterer.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

My LBS has one coming for me, which I'll mount on Stan's FR rims. This should be a good fast-rolling tire to help with the early season fitness miles I'm logging. The Michelin Wild Grip'R is killing me.


----------



## Pac8541 (Mar 23, 2015)

Is 19mm too narrow to maximize the benefits of this tire?


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Pac8541 said:


> Is 19mm too narrow to maximize the benefits of this tire?


To "maximize" the benefits, I would say that no, 19mm is not ideal. However I believe it'll work just fine. I've run mine on 21mm ID rims and they've worked well, just not quite as well as with larger rims


----------



## Pac8541 (Mar 23, 2015)

Cool, good info, thank you. . Looking at the Sun Ringle wheelsets, Black Flag and Charger. While I like the lower profile of the BF's the Chargers are a significantly wider wheel. Think I'll go with those.


----------



## pompa (Jun 6, 2009)

used them on wtb i19 was ok 
now on american classic wide lightning and they looks like fat bike now


----------



## Pac8541 (Mar 23, 2015)

Anybody run the 2.35 on the rear of a SIR9? Wondering about fit, tire rub/frame flex, etc.


----------



## Ohiorick (Feb 1, 2012)

Ohiorick said:


> Any one know if this tire will fit on the rear of a 2012 Santa Cruz Highball? I'm running Maxis Aspens 2.1 now and I think the added width will be ok, just wondering about the height clearance. Its time for some tires and these sound like a great way to add a bit of squish to this hardtail.


 Just installed these on my Highball,front and rear. They fit fine, with plenty of room. These mounted and aired up easier than any tire I have had on this bike. I am very impressed.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

How does the Ikon compare to the Racing Ralph 2.35 SS? The 2015 model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I've been out for a handful of rides with my new tires: High Roller 2 in front and an Ikon 2.35 in back. Both tires are 29", TR, Exo, 3C. Different 3C for each, obviously. MaxTerra in front, MaxSpeed in back. 

I am a big fan of this combination and am really impressed by the Ikon. 

I had been thinking about this combination last year, and was chuffed when bhowell commented that he uses it on his Prime. I've been using big tires for years: DHF/DHR2, DHF/DHF, and then last year I tried out the new Michelin offerings: Wild Rock'R 2 in front and Wild Grip'R in back. I noticed a loss of climbing traction in that case, but wasn't surprised considering the difference in rear tread. 

What surprises me now is that I haven't lost anything with the Ikon- it climbs (and corners!) as well as the knobbier Wild Grip'R, and the change in rolling resistance is insane.

There are a lot of guys I ride with who have Ardents in back. Two of us just made the switch to the Ikon, and I think that'll catch on. I still want to try the Minion SS and the Hurricane when they're available, but for now I'm really happy with my tires. I feel like I'm getting away with something having this kind of performance in a fast-rolling tire. That said, I don't want to take them to ride in desert chunk. I'll mount DHF/DHR2 for an upcoming trip.


----------



## TheOrca (Oct 3, 2011)

evasive said:


> I've been out for a handful of rides with my new tires: High Roller 2 in front and an Ikon 2.35 in back. Both tires are 29", TR, Exo, 3C.


I ride this combo too sometimes. I just wish Maxxis would make a larger volume HR2 for the 29er...the casing volume of the Ardent 2.4 and the Ikon 2.35 are larger than the 2.3 HR2. I eventually swapped to 2.35 HD front / 2.35 Ikon rear...really like this too.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Yeah, it would be nice if it were about the size of the DHR2. I had a summer fling with Hans Dampfs in 2012. I don't see myself going back.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

I'm in desert chunk and do ride the Ikon 2.35 on my single speed. Know what I'm running on the rear of my Phantom? A Specialized Slaughter Grid. Awesome tire in our conditions, just not enough volume for a hardtail IMO.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm thinking about a Bontrager 2.3 XR3 or a Spec Ground control 2.3. Give up a little width for a little more knobbiness, at similar weight. 

I like the Ardent Race also, but 29x2.2 is the widest.


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

I run a Specialized Ground Control 2.3 in back and a Butcher/ HR-2 front. Works very well IMO.


----------



## TheOrca (Oct 3, 2011)

evasive said:


> Yeah, it would be nice if it were about the size of the DHR2. I had a summer fling with Hans Dampfs in 2012. I don't see myself going back.


I went down the same road a couple years ago. First time I had a HD was in 2011. It didn't last long at all and I swore to never return do to longevity. But, I think the new ones have different rubber...this one seems to be holding up a LOT better!


----------



## Tickle (Dec 11, 2013)

smilinsteve said:


> I'm thinking about a Bontrager 2.3 XR3 or a Spec Ground control 2.3. Give up a little width for a little more knobbiness, at similar weight.
> 
> I like the Ardent Race also, but 29x2.2 is the widest.


The Bontrager tires are nice, I have an older 29-4 I traded for on the front of my hardtail(Ikon 2.35 in the back) and it's been a great front tire. I like it better than the Ardent 2.4, more predictable in the loose than the Ardent was especially after a little wear. About time to replace it and I will def try another if they have something equivalent.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> How does the Ikon compare to the Racing Ralph 2.35 SS? The 2015 model.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have RaRa rear pacestar compound and it has significant wear after pretty short use.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Well Steve, I would say that's a good move, the XR3 is like a beefed up Ikon, as in very similar knobs, just bigger and better grip more so when going down under braking and still roll really fast. Running one now on the rear of my Phantom after having run the 2.35" Ikon for a bit, really liking it.



smilinsteve said:


> I'm thinking about a Bontrager 2.3 XR3 or a Spec Ground control 2.3. Give up a little width for a little more knobbiness, at similar weight.
> 
> I like the Ardent Race also, but 29x2.2 is the widest.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> How does the Ikon compare to the Racing Ralph 2.35 SS? The 2015 model.


Meant to ask: How does it compare on the FRONT?


----------



## pompa (Jun 6, 2009)

after few more rids with the new wheels american classic wide lightning (the old set is wtb i19) the tire are ikon 2.2 rear (to tight for the 2.35 ) and ikon 2.35 front 
tr and exo 
today i try them in more technical single-track alot of rock climbing up and down 
and i mast say the combo of wide rim and the ikon is amazing so stable and magnificent grip the bike just climb anything now


----------



## Dirt-Salsa (Mar 30, 2015)

*Whiskey 50 on IKON's. 2.35 front, 2.2 back*

I switched to IKON's for the Whiskey 50 in Prescott AZ this past weekend. We had stream crossings, technical sections, 7,000 feet of climbing/descending and the IKON's did great. Traction on steep, loose, rocky climbs were no problem. Like them so much that I plan to leave them on and use them for all of my riding here in Phoenix.

I have them mounted on Roval Traverse SL Fatties (30mm inner width) does ad extra volume/low pressure and great in corners!








2.35 IKON on Right, 2.20 IKON on left








I didn't get scientific, but the knobs do look a bit deeper, more aggressive on the 2.35 vs 2.2








2.35 mounted up








2.35 on the Enve Mtn Fork


----------



## MHCBH (Jan 9, 2009)

Breaking loose in the rear a little earlier than I'd like when climbing.
Moved the Ikon 2.35 to the front and put an Ikon 2.2 on the rear.

More cush and less deflection with the wider front and seemed to be a little more traction from the narrower rear.

Next to try, is an Ardent Race on the back.[/QUOTE]

Have you tried the Ardent Race (front) and Ikon 2.35 rear combo? I was thinking of running this same combo on my XC rig with DT Swiss 1501 XR spline wheels (24mm external width). I have a new Hans Dampf that I was going to run with an Ikon rear, but I think it sounds like the Ardent Race would be a good alternative, still providing good traction up front but being lighter than the Hans Dampf.


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

MHCBH said:


> Have you tried the Ardent Race (front) and Ikon 2.35 rear combo? I was thinking of running this same combo on my XC rig with DT Swiss 1501 XR spline wheels (24mm external width). I have a new Hans Dampf that I was going to run with an Ikon rear, but I think it sounds like the Ardent Race would be a good alternative, still providing good traction up front but being lighter than the Hans Dampf.


IMO Ardent Race up front with Ikon 2.35 rear would be wonky. Ikon 2.35 side knobs are more substantial and it's a more voluminous tire.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Ardent Race rear with Ardent 2.4" front might be a good combo for days when a full Ikon setup may not be enough.


----------



## MHCBH (Jan 9, 2009)

Alias530 said:


> IMO Ardent Race up front with Ikon 2.35 rear would be wonky. Ikon 2.35 side knobs are more substantial and it's a more voluminous tire.


Just curious why you think the Ardent/Ikon combo would be wonky? Is is not good to combine two tires that are too different in compounds/tread pattern - such as also running the Hans Dampf/Ikon as well? When you say that the Ikon 2.35 is more voluminous with more substantial side knobs, do you think it would be better to just run Ikon front/rear - maybe in 2.35 front/2.2 rear?


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

MHCBH said:


> Just curious why you think the Ardent/Ikon combo would be wonky? Is is not good to combine two tires that are too different in compounds/tread pattern - such as also running the Hans Dampf/Ikon as well? When you say that the Ikon 2.35 is more voluminous with more substantial side knobs, do you think it would be better to just run Ikon front/rear - maybe in 2.35 front/2.2 rear?


Typically you would want the tire with more traction/volume in the front if you are running 2 different tires

And yes, ikon 2.35 front/2.2 rear is a great combo. I've been running them for quite a while now and really like them. I know I'm not the only one


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

MHCBH said:


> Just curious why you think the Ardent/Ikon combo would be wonky? Is is not good to combine two tires that are too different in compounds/tread pattern - such as also running the Hans Dampf/Ikon as well? When you say that the Ikon 2.35 is more voluminous with more substantial side knobs, do you think it would be better to just run Ikon front/rear - maybe in 2.35 front/2.2 rear?


You want your grippier/bigger tire up front.

MTB seems like the only wheeled sport where the smaller tire goes where power is delivered.


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

Just ordered a 29 2.35 exo, tr to go on my 120mm full sus bike. Hoping it's the perfect tire for the Midwest here. I need a little less than the mkii, NN, and ardent class, but every time I try something less it lacks too much on the more technical single track that I enjoy. Hoping this will be the best of both worlds or am I asking too much?


----------



## Kuttermax (Sep 4, 2011)

lawnboi said:


> Just ordered a 29 2.35 exo, tr to go on my 120mm full sus bike. Hoping it's the perfect tire for the Midwest here. I need a little less than the mkii, NN, and ardent class, but every time I try something less it lacks too much on the more technical single track that I enjoy. Hoping this will be the best of both worlds or am I asking too much?


I've posted earlier in this thread, but I have been running the 2.35 Ikon front and rear on my Niner RIP 9 RDO all spring and have been extremely happy with them. At Mohican State Park (Mohican State Park MTB Trail Mountain Bike Trail, Loudonville village, OH - that's my Jet 9 on the picture...) the trail is a mix of smooth single track, but also a lot of rocky and rooty sections and I had no issues at all with traction. The only thing is doesn't have is mud. I'm planning to leave the 2.35 Ikons on this bike even when I head to Colorado to ride some of the single track around Vail and Aspen in July. I will bring some other tires along but based on what I saw out there last summer, I suspect the Ikon's will be perfect.

I'm going to run a different combo on my Jet 9 RDO this weekend. I'm going to run the smaller Ikon 2.2 on the rear and an Ardent Race on the front.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

lawnboi said:


> Just ordered a 29 2.35 exo, tr to go on my 120mm full sus bike. Hoping it's the perfect tire for the Midwest here. I need a little less than the mkii, NN, and ardent class, but every time I try something less it lacks too much on the more technical single track that I enjoy. Hoping this will be the best of both worlds or am I asking too much?


You should be good with the Ikon 2.35. Where in the Midwest? It's a great front tire.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

lawnboi said:


> Just ordered a 29 2.35 exo, tr to go on my 120mm full sus bike. Hoping it's the perfect tire for the Midwest here. I need a little less than the mkii, NN, and ardent class, but every time I try something less it lacks too much on the more technical single track that I enjoy. Hoping this will be the best of both worlds or am I asking too much?


I run the Ikon 2.35 front and Ikon 2.2 rear. In Utah. I think you'll be ok.


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

BruceBrown said:


> You should be good with the Ikon 2.35. Where in the Midwest? It's a great front tire.


Wi, central and northern ( 9mile, Levis and standing rocks are my regulars). We have some nice rocky and rooty trails, love techy trails, and I'm hoping the higher volume helps, so long as the side nobs hold in turns.

Currently running a 2.4 mkii f, 2.2mkii r, and I'm very happy with this combo and would definetly buy again for an all round combo.


----------



## MHCBH (Jan 9, 2009)

I apologize if this has been discussed elsewhere but would there be any issue running the 2.35 Ikon on the front with a rim with 20mm internal width (DT Swiss 1501 XR Spline)?


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

lawnboi said:


> Wi, central and northern ( 9mile, Levis and standing rocks are my regulars). We have some nice rocky and rooty trails, love techy trails, and I'm hoping the higher volume helps, so long as the side nobs hold in turns.


I think a lot of it depends on your weight. I personally would never run an Ikon as a front tire, but I am 230lbs. When I need to change direction quickly, I need to depend on a knobby front tire. But if you are a lighter rider, I could see getting away with a less aggressive tire.

I have ridden Levis and 9mile, but never standing rocks. I run a Nobby Nick up front 2.35 and Racing Ralph rear 2.35. A lot of people in the area run Schwalbe tires, but the wear rate sucks!!


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

jonshonda said:


> I think a lot of it depends on your weight. I personally would never run an Ikon as a front tire, but I am 230lbs. When I need to change direction quickly, I need to depend on a knobby front tire. But if you are a lighter rider, I could see getting away with a less aggressive tire.
> 
> I have ridden Levis and 9mile, but never standing rocks. I run a Nobby Nick up front 2.35 and Racing Ralph rear 2.35. A lot of people in the area run Schwalbe tires, but the wear rate sucks!!


I only run 160 with gear, but I tend to like to ride pretty aggressively, after having the ikon in my hands I think I could maybe run it as a front, but I'm not going too until I see what it does on the back. I'm surprised at the stiffness of the 2.35 side knobs.

So for now the mkii will stay up front. Iv considered schwalbe, and I'm not overly rough on tires at my size, but the 80+ dollar price tag for them steered me away, atleast for now. I think, at least on this bike, a nn, ardent or mkii will stay up front.

And when I go out west, to places like Utah, I put on an even more aggressive tires


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

lawnboi said:


> And when I go out west, to places like Utah, I put on an even more aggressive tires


Well then you're just wasting money and good rubber! Save the big knobbies for the places with real dirt that the knobs can actually get a bite into. With all the rock, sand, and gravel we have here in Utah a high volume low knob tire is the way to go.

In the Midwest I ran Fast Traks. Tight, twisty, hardpacked trails in the Midwest never gave much opportunity to wash out the front.

The only time I was glad to have some big knobby tires was in Oregon. Mostly because it rained the whole time.


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

dgw2jr said:


> Well then you're just wasting money and good rubber! Save the big knobbies for the places with real dirt that the knobs can actually get a bite into. With all the rock, sand, and gravel we have here in Utah a high volume low knob tire is the way to go.
> 
> In the Midwest I ran Fast Traks. Tight, twisty, hardpacked trails in the Midwest never gave much opportunity to wash out the front.
> 
> The only time I was glad to have some big knobby tires was in Oregon. Mostly because it rained the whole time.


I ride a Minion DHF up front year round and it gets to pretty much concrete hard hardpack in the dead of summer. Still seems to bite better than lighter duty tires I've ridden.


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

jonshonda said:


> I think a lot of it depends on your weight. I personally would never run an Ikon as a front tire, but I am 230lbs. When I need to change direction quickly, I need to depend on a knobby front tire. But if you are a lighter rider, I could see getting away with a less aggressive tire.
> 
> I have ridden Levis and 9mile, but never standing rocks. I run a Nobby Nick up front 2.35 and Racing Ralph rear 2.35. A lot of people in the area run Schwalbe tires, but the wear rate sucks!!





dgw2jr said:


> Well then you're just wasting money and good rubber! Save the big knobbies for the places with real dirt that the knobs can actually get a bite into. With all the rock, sand, and gravel we have here in Utah a high volume low knob tire is the way to go.
> 
> In the Midwest I ran Fast Traks. Tight, twisty, hardpacked trails in the Midwest never gave much opportunity to wash out the front.
> 
> The only time I was glad to have some big knobby tires was in Oregon. Mostly because it rained the whole time.


I guess I should have specified, I prefer beefier tires in moab. Though I'd the 2.35 ikon will probably stay in the rear


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

I might have missed it but , any idea what a ikon 2.35 would be on the flow ex 25.5mm id ? Trying to determine if they will clear the chainstays , thanks in advanced.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

johnD said:


> I might have missed it but , any idea what a ikon 2.35 would be on the flow ex 25.5mm id ? Trying to determine if they will clear the chainstays , thanks in advanced.


Just measured my Ikon 2.35 EXO TLR at 60mm on a WTB Frequency i25.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

lawnboi said:


> I guess I should have specified, I prefer beefier tires in moab. Though I'd the 2.35 ikon will probably stay in the rear


I'm including Moab when I said Utah. All that slickrock just sands big knobs down to nubs.


----------



## johnD (Mar 31, 2010)

dgw2jr said:


> Just measured my Ikon 2.35 EXO TLR at 60mm on a WTB Frequency i25.


Thanks for getting the measurement ! They should clear with plenty of room.


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

You guys convinced me, ordered another for the front.

Now if only these dang mkii's would die. 

The rear is going on 1000 miles and it just won't die.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

lawnboi said:


> You guys convinced me, ordered another for the front.
> 
> Now if only these dang mkii's would die.
> 
> The rear is going on 1000 miles and it just won't die.


Set aside the mkii for winter!


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

MHCBH said:


> I apologize if this has been discussed elsewhere but would there be any issue running the 2.35 Ikon on the front with a rim with 20mm internal width (DT Swiss 1501 XR Spline)?


Should be fine. I've got one on a Crest (21mm inner width) and it is fine.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

MHCBH said:


> I apologize if this has been discussed elsewhere but would there be any issue running the 2.35 Ikon on the front with a rim with 20mm internal width (DT Swiss 1501 XR Spline)?


I'm running X-king 2.4's on 19 mm rims and just have to keep the pressure above 20 psi to stop them rolling.
But then again, i'm not fast or aggressive in my riding style.


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

Just had my first ride on a Maxxis Ikon 2.35 front wheel. VERY nice tire. Excellent grip on loose-on-hardpack. I was previously running a 2.35 Geax Sturdy which had a very square profile and aggressive side knobs. I think the rounded profile works far better and the 2.35 gives a nice contact patch. Maybe the square profile is better on loamy, or wet dirt where it can dig in but the Ikon 2.35 was noticeably better on the very first turn on loose and hardpack.


----------



## andyfloyd (Apr 22, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> Should be fine. I've got one on a Crest (21mm inner width) and it is fine.


I run a 2.35 on the front and 2.2 on the rear of my Blur TR. Its 27.5" its not 29" but the same applies here. The Ikon grips way better than you think its going to. I have tried to break the front loose leaning it into flat corners with a little loose over and it sticks really great. Best tires I have used for trails here in the east. Doesnt like a ton of mud, but hangs in there.

My rims are 21.5 internal and I weigh 150 and I run around 22psi with no issues.


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

Got a few rides on the 2.35 ikons now. Running them on 22.5mm internal bontrager rims with their tlr rim strip and sealant. Seated with a floor pump. Nice plump tire, a hair bigger than the 2.4 continentals I was using. Definitely a big volume tire and I suspect like the conti tires I'll need to run a little extra pressure with the skinnier rims to keep them from squirming (wish I could spring for some 27-30mm rims). Currently running 24psi(on my floor pump), might try a few psi less in the coming days.

The only huge difference I noticed so far, coming from the 2.4 mkii f, 2.2 mkii r, is the rolling resistance. These tires roll great.
Next I noticed the difference in the casing, seems like maxxis exo is a bit more forgiving than the conti protection casing, and lastly a little weight difference was there, both mine ran in at ~730 grams.

As a rear tire it is nice, I didn't see it giving up much to the mkii I had back there besides the braking. It will definetly be staying there for a while. So far it's my favorite rear, grips well enough and with that big contact patch it grips roots and rocks well. Just need to be careful on the loose corners as the side nobs don't bite much.

As a front I don't like it as much. I just can't push it where ever I want like I could the mkii, but that's to be expected. Takes a lot more attention, and the few time where I got tired and stopped, the ikon was sure to put me on the ground. It just doesn't corner as well, though it's an xc tire so I get it. Nothing magic though, I honestly don't think I'll be putting another ikon on the front of my do all trail bike again. Though I'm going to keep running it in the front for a while yet, maybe I'll change my mind. They do climb and roll very very well. 

The only thing I didn't like about them is the braking, I can't come flying into a tight, loose corner anymore at full speed without losing control.

So to close, as an aggressive xc tire I think they are perfect, they demand a little more attention in the front though.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

lawnboi said:


> As a front I don't like it as much. I just can't push it where ever I want like I could the mkii, but that's to be expected..


Tried an Ardent 2.4 on the front?
They still roll very nicely.


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

NordieBoy said:


> Tried an Ardent 2.4 on the front?
> They still roll very nicely.


No but I'm thinking if the ikon doesn't work out in front after a while ( or wears out) I'll try the ardent, or a 2.3 spec ground control.


----------



## XC Mike (Sep 26, 2004)

Quick question for you guys on the Ikon 2.35
I have the 2.2's on the F&R on my Lefty and love them...
What I'm thinking about doing is running the 2.35 F&R on my Tandem.
Most of the Tandem Teams run the Ardents 2.4 but what I'm reading is they don't roll that fast.
I'm using Conti Protection 2.4 Xking F&R at the moment and was looking for something less weight and fast rolling would these 2.35 do the trick??


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

Xc mike, I ran a xking 2.4 protection out back for a small while, the tire only lasted me like 300 miles. But I do prefer the ikon over it in all respects. IMO there was nothing the xking did better. The ikon is slightly bigger volume wise as well, not much but it's bigger and the tread pattern is wider.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

I run an Ikon 2.35 rear and DHF 2.3 on my Honzo. Its good combo for dry to slightly dustry trails.


----------



## 993rs (Dec 31, 2005)

2.35 upfront for me. More cushin' for the pushin'.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

993rs said:


> 2.35 upfront for me. More cushin' for the pushin'.


Yes. Keep in mind - the psi is KEY! Too many over-inflate their XC lower knob mountain bike tires and don't reap the benefits of just how a 29"er tire can really perform in most environments so well. An Ikon 2.35 on the front of my wife's bike is like glue at 15 psi. Traction, suspension, cornering, braking and it all works to her delight. The same 2.35 Ikon tire pumped up in the 20's for her weight (113) bounces all over the place for her. It performs great for me at 23-24 psi up front due to my weight (175).

Not that it would matter, but when people post about the Ikon 2.35 (or other tires) it would be informative to know what psi the tire is being run and what the rider weight is. Not that every gauge measures the same, but at least we'd have more information to add to one's opinion when they state it.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

18psi, 23mm rim, 185 lbs.


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

Just got done installing an Ikon 2.35 as a rear. Man this is a big tire. I plan on running it about 25 lbs to start and adjust from there. I weigh about 170 geared up.


----------



## 993rs (Dec 31, 2005)

19 psi (155 lbs) on a wider NOX rim, usually rigid and sometimes a Rockshox fork.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

Ikons did not fail me today


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

NordieBoy said:


> 18psi, 23mm rim, 185 lbs.


The tyres were a bit low so yesterday I pumped them up too much so I could let them down to 18f/20r before today's ride.
I forgot to let them down.

It rolled REALLY nicely. It went so well, I couldn't wait to get home and find what pressures were.

18f/20r
Surprised the hell out of me, I can tell you.
Was sure there was at least 22f/24r in there.

Now I'm trying to work out what was different about the ride than normal...


----------



## TheOrca (Oct 3, 2011)

dgw2jr said:


> Ikons did not fail me today


Where is this?


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

TheOrca said:


> Where is this?


I'll never tell!

Hood river, Oregon


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

A little over a month on the ikon 2.35 both f and r. Abandoning the ikon on the front. It's my favorite rear tire, but it doesn't let me push through anything on the front. It rolls up hill fast, and when I finally gather the cash to build a more xc bike, I'd throw one on the front, but for my do everything bike they let me down when it came to cornering on anything other than dry hard pack. 

So I said screw it and ordered a dhf for up front, I ain't racing anyways, so why not have fun. We will see atleast I'm hoping with this combo that I won't be afraid to take it anywhere for trips out of state.


----------



## xmessenger (Aug 13, 2010)

Just discovered this tire and it sounded exactly like what I was looking for in a rear tire. I already knew the Ikon had a good reputation but was seeking something both fat and relatively light for the dry season(summer) here in Victoria Canada.
My bike is a Motobecane Fly Ti 29er w/XTR. Yeah, it sounds like a strictly XC bike and perhaps it is but I have made it more trail with certain tweaks like a beefier Formula Volo Scandium rear wheel (the front is a light weight Crest but I figured I can get away with it as I am only 160lbs), wider bar, short stem and most importantly tires.
I also chose the 3x front because I must ride to the trail and I need a granny for our local terrain. I also figure that a light titanium frame should make for a great toosable trail bike that can handle some rough treatment while being a bit smoother for long rides and while the Maxxis Beaver was great for the soggy conditions here(not to mention extremely light) , now that its dry I wanted something that could both further smooth out the ride and provide more grip.
I chose the lighter exc version because ,despite the reputation BC has for it trails, I rarely slash the sidewalls here(perhaps all the rain tends to smooth out the rocks?).
Anyways, I just finished my first real ride, my typical 45km(28mile) loop that begins on pavement in town to bike path to double track/fire road made up of hard pack and finer gravel on hard pack to actual single track which again is hard pack to loose rock over hard pack to loose dusty dirt and bare mountain rock.
I was immediately happy with its rolling. For such a fat tire it rolls quite well. I should mention that I run both tires in their early 20s with my front being a Conti MK2 2.4".
What probably stood out most to me, and this kind of surprised me as I didn't think a rear tire would make this kind of improvement, was fast cornering on finer gravel over hard pack. The bike gave me so much more confidence and responded well to how I handl4ed the bike. It plain hooks up without the vague feeling I had with the Beaver(mind you the Beaver isn't designed for this kind of terrain and is only 2.0" but still...). This was very noticeable.
Once at the actual trail area called Hartland or the Dump(its next to our regional dump, only the best for us mountain bikers. Lol) I climb this shorter steep switchback trail that is mostly hard pack with some fine loose stuff and the typical roots which are everywhere in BC- this thing hooked up great, no spinning. A rock ledge soon came up and I wondered how this new tire would handle this challenge-again, no issues, the sheer volume combined with their tread pattern and compound grabbed onto the rock. This is always a balancing act as I have to unweight the rear to get the back end up and over then may need to immediately have grip if momentum isn't enough to complete the section. There are lots of these kinds of features here and while skill and strength are the biggest factor traction sure helps when lacking in either area and these tires impress. 
Now I am at the main horrible fire road the steeply winds its way up our little hill here and its often covered in chunky loose rock. Now, no tire can prevent a spin when torqued on top of a larger rock but this thing did recover fast once over it and generally seemed to have more grip than I am accustomed to. It was also here that I was happy to not notice the extra weight compared to the extremely light(500g) Beaver.
Finally, the last noticeable improvement was a smooth rock feature that is basically, 2 sections with a root running along the best line. It is further made tricky by the light dusting of dirt from other riders coming down the opposite direction. I see that most guys on FS bikes make this look easy but on a hardtail it takes power and a carefull balance as you must stand and climb while appying the right amount of power and weight to the back end. I am 42 and a smoker and not the best of riders , I ride for fun, and think I beat this once and no I did not beat it this tuime either but I wasn't really trying. I was surprised how far I got though considering I wasn't seriously trying to conquar this thing on this particular day. It hooked up better than anticipated despite the slippery dust which I honestly thought would affect all tires no matter how fat.
Well, thats it for now, got to go to work. Just thought I would add my experiances seeing as its was noted and obvious after having just installed it.
Happy trails.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Thinking of migrating my front 2.35 Ikon to the rear, replacing the 2.2 Ikon and trying a 2.4 Ardent on the front.
It'll help the rear and give a little more winter grip in the front.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Flucod said:


> Careful with that Ardent 2.4 in the front, in hard cornering there is a dead spot in the tread design that under the right circumstances the tire just washes out. I thought it was a string of bad luck when I kept having the front wheel break free and down I would go. Changed it out and it has not happened since. There is another thread somewhere that speaks of this.
> 
> Weight 215lbs, 21 Psi front and back


Let's not forget proper set up with plenty of one's weight over the front wheel for cornering and technique. I've seen guys rail turns on Nano's in mud and rain, guys nail turns on DH runs with Small Blocks and minimal tread tires.

"Run whatcha brung" and "skills prevents kills" seem to rule the day for this sport. Not saying good rubber doesn't help, but in the hands of a skilled rider - it's amazing what can be accomplished out there on the trail.

The Ikon 2.35 makes for a pretty great front (and rear) aggressive XC tire.


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

I had to relearn how to push through turns after putting the dhf up front instead of the ikon. The ikons forced me to ride my bike like it was an xc bike. Which is good and bad. 

The ikon never instilled any confidence up front for me, off camber roots and rocks didn't pair well with it out front either. Out back it rocks, unfortunately I don't see it lasting too long as I'm starting to rip knobs already, but good thing iv got 2 

The dhf up front is more than I need for the majority of my riding, but I can't complain as it rolls faster than the mkii that the ikon originally replaced. That and I can once again push hard through my favorite sections of trail, and I don't worry about landing on loose rock or roots anymore after going airborne. I think I'd run this combo anywhere dry and be completely happy. We will see when I get it on some more dh trails hopefully soon.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

So which has larger volume? The 2.35 Ikon EXO or the 2.4 Ardent?

For rear use on a 29er HT


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Flucod said:


> Careful with that Ardent 2.4 in the front, in hard cornering there is a dead spot in the tread design that under the right circumstances the tire just washes out.


Interesting. Most threads relating to this complain about the 2.25 Ardent not the 2.4


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

06HokieMTB said:


> So which has larger volume? The 2.35 Ikon EXO or the 2.4 Ardent?
> 
> For rear use on a 29er HT


The look the same - but I broke out some calipers and the Ardent is in fact a touch wider. 
That said: Run the 2.35 Ikon out back because it's awesome. Seriously awesome.

As far as the Ardent feeling a bit wash-y.... I've had that problem and experienced it, and it's basically about having the widely space transition knobs - on some loose over hard it basically gets the worst of both worlds, and doesn't really want to grab. Lean it over further, and it'll bite... but it's spookier than necessary getting there, and the limit at the farther end is still not particularly high. The 2.4 is better about it because the tread is slightly taller, but that's just how the Ardent design works - and it's fine over true hardpack, works over slickrock, and makes it behave better than similar tires might in mud, but loose over hard that range of lean angles just sucks in my experience - and full lean is a full commitment exercise (and why I'm really glad I run a fat Ikon out back that will let go very predictably just before the front).

If they made a 2.5 Minion DHR2 I'd probably run that out front instead, I still might move to the 2.3 DHR2 just to get that tread pattern out front, or just eat the rolling resistance and weight penalty of the 2.5 DHF monster truck tire out front.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Well, all this talk about the Ikon made me curious. My trail are loose over hard, sandy, with a decent amount of roots and some rocks. I picked up a brand new Ardent 2.4 and Ikon 2.35 to compare against a 2.35NN and 2.35RaRa. 

Schwalbe is the tire a lot of people run in the area, and the RaRa doesn't seem to suffer from the advanced wear that a lot of users post about. Mounted both up tubeless on Blunt35's last night (w/ the help of a compressor, vs. floor pump for Schwalbe). Well, the Ardent really doesn't "appear" to be much bigger than the 2.35" NN I have mounted on FlowEX rims, and the same goes for the Ikon/RaRa. But the Maxxis tires are brand new, so I will compare more in a month or so after they have stretched. 

I have to spend more time w/ the Ardent to determine the ideal tire pressure, but for me the NN outperformed the Ardent as a front tire. The transition did seam a little odd and uneasy for me, but again...I need to play more. The Ikon is clearly outshined by the RaRa in the braking dept, the Ikon really loved to break loose...I was dragging the rear a lot more than I remember w/ the RaRa. 

I will add these are mounted on my rigid SS Karate Monkey, and as promised the do provide relief from some of the smaller roots and rocks. I am also very new to rigid (I have a rigid fat bike, but that is a 4.8" tire on 80mm rim), and the downhill rough stuff is still teeth chattering.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

You're doing it wrong obviously, not having enough fun or your mouth would be open all the way hooting and hollering as you go   Seriously do find the 2.35" Ikon is a bit drifty on loose over hardpack under braking, haven't ridden a RaRa in so long can't say for sure, but can't remember them being any better, but climbing traction with the Ikon is loads better, definitely don't have to work as hard as I did with the RaRa.



jonshonda said:


> ...........I will add these are mounted on my rigid SS Karate Monkey, and as promised they do provide relief from some of the smaller roots and rocks. I am also very new to rigid (I have a rigid fat bike, but that is a 4.8" tire on 80mm rim), and *the downhill rough stuff is still teeth chattering*.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

The Ikons are cheaper and will last way longer than the RaRa.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

LyNx said:


> Seriously do find the 2.35" Ikon is a bit drifty on loose over hardpack under braking, haven't ridden a RaRa in so long can't say for sure, but can't remember them being any better, but climbing traction with the Ikon is loads better, definitely don't have to work as hard as I did with the RaRa.


I will pay attention to climbing, which typically isn't a large issue in my area. I am really looking for more cush in the rear, and a stellar front tire...as the front tire in my area does 80% of the work.



Stonerider said:


> The Ikons are cheaper and will last way longer than the RaRa.


The Ikon 3C EXO TR my lbs ordered wasn't much cheaper than a RaRa Snakeskin EVO


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

jonshonda said:


> I will pay attention to climbing, which typically isn't a large issue in my area. I am really looking for more cush in the rear, and a stellar front tire...as the front tire in my area does 80% of the work.
> 
> The Ikon 3C EXO TR my lbs ordered wasn't much cheaper than a RaRa Snakeskin EVO


You are comparing some great tires there. I love the Ikon 2.35s, the Racing Ralph 2.4's and now 2.35's (I've got that combo on my SS Karate Monkey), the Nobby Nics and the Ardent 2.4's. All great tires, but the Ikon and Racing Ralph are really XC oriented race tires. Braking during an XC race? Please. Minimal braking at best to scrub as little speed as possible. That's why I run a 140mm rotor in the rear. Who needs to brake during a race? 

The side lugs are taller on the 2.35 Ikons than their smaller 2.2 sibling, but the extra volume does provide a better footprint in the rear for better traction on out of saddle climb efforts than the 2.2's. Racing Ralph's - no matter what size - do out climb traction wise the Ikon in my experience simply due to the taller center lugs. Nobby Nic front, Ralph rear certainly would be a great combo if one's terrain has a lot of loose, dusty, dry and you need dig to corner.

My wife digs her Ikon 2.35's front and rear.



__
https://flic.kr/p/vthbJa
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

She likes to brake a lot:thumbsup:

I still adhere to the reality that for XC riding and racing, the Ikon 2.35 is a pretty aggressive tire on a 29"er.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

BruceBrown said:


> You are comparing some great tires there. I love the Ikon 2.35s, the Racing Ralph 2.4's and now 2.35's (I've got that combo on my SS Karate Monkey), the Nobby Nics and the Ardent 2.4's. All great tires, but the Ikon and Racing Ralph are really XC oriented race tires. Braking during an XC race? Please. Minimal braking at best to scrub as little speed as possible. That's why I run a 140mm rotor in the rear. Who needs to brake during a race?
> 
> The side lugs are taller on the 2.35 Ikons than their smaller 2.2 sibling, but the extra volume does provide a better footprint in the rear for better traction on out of saddle climb efforts than the 2.2's. Racing Ralph's - no matter what size - do out climb traction wise the Ikon in my experience simply due to the taller center lugs. Nobby Nic front, Ralph rear certainly would be a great combo if one's terrain has a lot of loose, dusty, dry and you need dig to corner.
> 
> ...


I can't help but notice...is the rear tire reversed on that bike?

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

8iking VIIking said:


> I can't help but notice...is the rear tire reversed on that bike?


No, there is only the Maxxis yellow lettering on the rear tire (on both sides) as it is one of the original Ikon 2.35 test tires and didn't have any of the names or logos on it.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> No, there is only the Maxxis yellow lettering on the rear tire (on both sides) as it is one of the original Ikon 2.35 test tires and didn't have any of the names or logos on it.


I wish all of the Ikons were void of that sh!t. They are really getting carried away with all the logos.

As far as breaking, I do agree that they are race oriented tires, but you aren't going fast enough on the rest of the trails if you don't have to use the breaks in a corner! ha

The Ardent feels a lot different in a (loose over hard) corner than a NN. For some reason it "feels" a lot harder, like its not connected.


----------



## Horrorshow (Jul 10, 2015)

How does the Conti X-King 2.4 Protection Black Chili compare to the Ikon 2.35? Anyone compared on front or rear?

I keep hearing good things about the black chili and want to try it, sounds like it should be better when the trail has wet spots?


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

Horrorshow said:


> How does the Conti X-King 2.4 Protection Black Chili compare to the Ikon 2.35? Anyone compared on front or rear?
> 
> I keep hearing good things about the black chili and want to try it, sounds like it should be better when the trail has wet spots?


There is nothing the 2.4 xking does better than the ikon in the rear IMO. I ran one, it wore very quickly. Rolled alright. The ikon 2.35 is similar volume, maybe a hair bigger. I liked the black chili compound on the set of conti mkii tires I owned, but did not care for the xking. The x king did nothing special for me. I may have gotten a bad one though, it lasted all of 200 miles before knobs were falling apart.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

The Ikon 2.35 is much bigger than the XKing 2.4.
I'm running the XKing on my rigid ss 26" and the Ikon on my 29" hard tail ss.
Nothing bad to say about the Contis or icons.


----------



## pompa (Jun 6, 2009)

my update 
the ikon 2.35 on AC wide lightning as front 
in the loos and debris this summer not much of traction for cornering


----------



## DB-Photo (Jun 7, 2015)

I would like to try an Ikon 2.35 as a rear tyre. Sounds like a good tyre for me here..

What front would you recommend? Was thinking about an Ardent...

Want something that corners well for some trail use..


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Ardent 2.4 on the front.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

2.42!? Are you sure you're reading it right? 2.31 for the Ardent sounds bang on (going by Arts Cyclery Web site of 2.30). According to AC, the Ikon comes in at 2.25 (tread) 2.17 (casing). Hopefully it's not as big as you claim ^^ as I'm waiting for one in the mail... 

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


----------



## Kuttermax (Sep 4, 2011)

The 2.35 Ikon is definitely a big tire. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

The Ardent should stretch a little with a few miles on it.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

lol!! You're almost pinch flatting that Ardent! And you're barely touching the Ikon! 

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


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Correct, the casing will stretch out a decent amount, should end up the same casing width as the Ikon, AFAIK, they're both built on the same casing.


NordieBoy said:


> The Ardent should stretch a little with a few miles on it.


----------



## redwarrior (Apr 12, 2007)

Re: Ardent 2.4 grip for a front tire. I ran them for a while, both front & back. I really liked the grip on the rear & the front felt great until it got leaned over in a turn. It wound grip, grip, grip & then let go. I'm liking the Ikon 2.35's much better.


----------



## skey44 (Dec 8, 2011)

Ikon 29 2.35. Exo not TR, setup tubeless fine so far. Weight 719g. With a 26mm inner width rim, It's a huge tire that has low rolling resistance and more grip than it looks like it should. Pairs nicely with Nobby Nic 29x2.35 up front. Running 26-28 psi at 180 rider weight and measuring 2.4" wide! I would not run it up front, but I would guess for XC riding it would be ok. I ride rough rocky and root laden trails on the weekends with generally high moisture (western NC) and wouldn't trust it up front. If it holds up and continues to perform I think this is my new go to summer rear tire.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

And yet you trust a Nobby Nic? ut: Have to admit, once it stays dry, the NN is a pretty nice tyre, but once you get some moisture the think is very scary compared to a Maxxis tyre, seriously. If I were you I'd give a DHF, HR2 or even DHR2 a try in 3C compound upfront to find out what "real" grip is on wet rocks and mossy rocks or at leats the most you might get from a tyre.



skey44 said:


> Ikon 29 2.35. Exo not TR, setup tubeless fine so far. Weight 719g. With a 26mm inner width rim, It's a huge tire that has low rolling resistance and more grip than it looks like it should. Pairs nicely with Nobby Nic 29x2.35 up front. Running 26-28 psi at 180 rider weight and measuring 2.4" wide! I would not run it up front, but I would guess for XC riding it would be ok. I ride rough rocky and root laden trails on the weekends with generally high moisture (western NC) and wouldn't trust it up front. If it holds up and continues to perform I think this is my new go to summer rear tire.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

LyNx said:


> And yet you trust a Nobby Nic? ut: Have to admit, once it stays dry, the NN is a pretty nice tyre, but once you get some moisture the think is very scary compared to a Maxxis tyre, seriously. If I were you I'd give a DHF, HR2 or even DHR2 a try in 3C compound upfront to find out what "real" grip is on wet rocks and mossy rocks or at leats the most you might get from a tyre.


Didn't they redo the NN for 2015? I wonder if it's better. I have tried one up front in the past and was also not impressed. Between that and the uber fast wear of the Racing ralph on the rear I've sworn off schwalbe. Ill admit I'm a bit of a maxxis fanboy but I'm still loving this tire on the front of my 29er hardtail and on the rear of my 27.5 fs bike. They really hit it out of the park with this one

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Just installed Ikon 2.35 on 25.5mm internal width rim... it measures 55mm (tread). 

The current Ardent up front, on the same rim - measures 60mm (tread). 

Guessing the Ardent has stretched over time. But, I don't think 5mm would be likely.

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


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

targnik said:


> Just installed Ikon 2.35 on 25.5mm internal width rim... it measures 55mm (tread).
> 
> The current Ardent up front, on the same rim - measures 60mm (tread).
> 
> Guessing the Ardent has stretched over time. But, I don't think 5mm would be likely.


It will stretch given time.


----------



## skey44 (Dec 8, 2011)

I have the NN 2015 trail-star (softer) triple compound with SnakeSkin sidewall and love it, I run the Hans Dampf ft and rr for enduro racing. The NN sticks very well for me and has a nice low mass. This is admittedly my first attempt with maxxis tires.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

First ride on Ikon today... 600+m of climbing then a short-ish descent. Tire climbs fine... Not sold on descending prowess yet ;-)

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Wel, can't say I don't blame you if you're on loose/dry powdery stuff, if you're on nice hard compacted, tacky dirt or rocks, we or dry the Ikons work great, but the loose stuff they are not great for braking and or steering, not if you're accustomed to something with more bite and carrying serious speed and braking late on top of that. A 2.35" Ikon with beefed up side knobs would be a great compliment to a normal Ikon on the rear or if Maxxis will ever listen a 2.35" Ignitor.



targnik said:


> First ride on Ikon today... 600+m of climbing then a short-ish descent. Tire climbs fine... Not sold on descending prowess yet ;-)
> 
> Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

It doesn't suck at descending. It just sucks at braking. If you're trying to hit the brakes on descents (braking in the spots it doesn't like), unable to handle the extra speed and lack of rolling resistance, why not go back to a slower tire? My best times are on Ikons, and it's always bone dry.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

I think we need to keep in mind that the Ikon, even the 2.35 version, is still a xc or "light trail" tire. Of course it won't have the cornering or braking grip of a true all-mountain/enduro tire. But for what it is, it truly is a near perfect tire IMO. Light weight, great rolling resistance, big volume and reasonable grip all in one. Love mine on the front of my xc race bike and the back of my trail bike

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

For me, yeah braking sucks on what we've got now, which is seriously loose from being ridden on so much over hard, back just likes to step out. Haven't run it on the front since I was testing the 2.2" version and I think I was riding a bit slower back then, also more on rocks and weather wasn't so dry, so more tacky dirt.


Varaxis said:


> It doesn't suck at descending. It just sucks at braking. If you're trying to hit the brakes on descents (braking in the spots it doesn't like), unable to handle the extra speed and lack of rolling resistance, why not go back to a slower tire? My best times are on Ikons, and it's always bone dry.


You are right, for it's intended design, the tyre is excellent, no two ways about that.


8iking VIIking said:


> I think we need to keep in mind that the Ikon, even the 2.35 version, is still a xc or "light trail" tire. Of course it won't have the cornering or braking grip of a true all-mountain/enduro tire. But for what it is, it truly is a near perfect tire IMO. Light weight, great rolling resistance, big volume and reasonable grip all in one. Love mine on the front of my xc race bike and the back of my trail bike
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Trails were hardpack over rooty, rocky... w/ a dab of moisture. I have bought it for endurance type events, so speed over grip. 2.2 Ardent Race does ok despite being quite narrow w/ smaller teeth.

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


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Going to try the Ikon up front w/ Michelin Wild Race'R 2.25 out back... Likely next weekend ^^

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

targnik said:


> Going to try the Ikon up front w/ Michelin Wild Race'R 2.25 out back... Likely next weekend ^^
> 
> Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad


That might be my next tire combo, too. High volume, fast.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> That might be my next tire combo, too. High volume, fast.


If I like how the WR'2 handles, it'll be my race day setup ^^

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


----------



## padrefan1982 (Mar 2, 2005)

8iking VIIking said:


> I think we need to keep in mind that the Ikon, even the 2.35 version, is still a xc or "light trail" tire. Of course it won't have the cornering or braking grip of a true all-mountain/enduro tire. But for what it is, it truly is a near perfect tire IMO. Light weight, great rolling resistance, big volume and reasonable grip all in one. Love mine on the front of my xc race bike and the back of my trail bike
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


This. (Also what Lynx said.) I've got some time on these tires now, and this is a great description of them. I wonder if people see the width, and think "Endurobro" tire, and run it expecting crazy grip and still have great rolling resistance. The truth is, if you know what you are doing, its an amazing tire. I feel that it's a tire that doesn't suffer fools or inexperienced riders--I'm speaking from experience on this one; been dumped off the bike when I pushed too hard in a corner, but also gained some PRs on some downhill sections as well.

They are _fast_ tires, with a descent to good amount of grip as well. Liked them in smaller 2.2 size, and absolutely love them in this 2.35 size. Everything that was there in the smaller size is extra awesome!


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

All of a sudden, mine doesn't hold air for ****...

Mavic Crossmax wheels (UST)
Stans Sealant, added recently (within 2 weeks)

Valve stem is fine, no thorns, rips or tears. 

I lose 15lbs overnight. Can't figure out why...


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Fill a tub or barrel with enough water to immerse a good bit of it and rotate around and look for air bubbles releasing. Go slowly, could be very small ones that you can hear. I'd guess you have a puncture or hole you can't see or maybe you dinged your rim and didn't see it and that's where it's slowly leaking from.



HitmenOnlyInc said:


> All of a sudden, mine doesn't hold air for ****...
> 
> Mavic Crossmax wheels (UST)
> Stans Sealant, added recently (within 2 weeks)
> ...


----------



## HitmenOnlyInc (Jul 20, 2012)

When I added sealant, it held fine and I thought it was just dried out Stan's. Now I'm in the same boat. To be fair the tire is not a TR tire but is is a 3C 120tpi tire. I didn't have any problem for the first month it was installed then I went on vacation and found it almost flat...


----------



## Davidcopperfield (Jan 17, 2007)

I am holding out for an Ikon 3" or even 3.5" for a 29+ FS on 50mm rims. Fast and a little bit of that Fat Bike sensation.  :thumbsup:


----------



## Derek200 (Jun 16, 2015)

What is the biggest non fat 29 inch tire available. Seems like 2.4 is the biggest I have seen. Anyone make something like a 2.6 orb2.7?


----------



## armourbl (May 5, 2012)

Ordered up an Ikon yesterday to put on the front of my ride. Already running the 2.2 Ikon on the rear. Once that one wears out I will order another 2.35 for the rear or maybe transition the front to the rear and go with something more aggressive.

Can't wait to try it out.

ben


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

MostChillin said:


> Maxxis Minion DHFs come in 2.5


My buddy has one...and that is one BEAST of a tire!!


----------



## beer_coffee_water (Mar 1, 2011)

MostChillin said:


> Maxxis Minion DHFs come in 2.5





jonshonda said:


> My buddy has one...and that is one BEAST of a tire!!


It is an awesome tire is size and grip. So much that I think I might move my DC version to the rear and get a 3C for the front of my 2016 Honzo once I get it. According to owners the 2015 Honzo the clearance is there. No need to try b+ for if my plan works out. I know it won't fit to MYs prior to 2015 because an Ardent 2.4 barely cleared and had slight rubbing on the chainstay yoke on my 2013. I think the minion, ardent and ikon all share the same casing.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

MostChillin said:


> Any comments that you can share on how well the DHFs roll?
> 
> I've been really pleased with the Ardent/Ikon combo for my local trails as it addressed my front Ikon wanting to washout on loose over hardpack.
> 
> ...


The DHF rolls well enough for a front tire. It's well worth the small penalty in rolling resistance IMO, they grip like crazy.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## F29Lefty (Apr 10, 2014)

anyone else feel like the ikon 2.35s are a little drifty?? felt good climbing..


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

8iking VIIking said:


> The DHF rolls well enough for a front tire. It's well worth the small penalty in rolling resistance IMO, they grip like crazy.


That tire is MASSIVE! Huge knobs and very large volume. It makes my NN/Ardent looks like a kids toy.


----------



## Jehosephat (Nov 29, 2011)

LyNx said:


> ... if Maxxis will ever listen a 2.35" Ignitor.


+1 for a 2.35 Ignitor. Let's go Maxxis, make it happen.


----------



## teleken (Jul 22, 2005)

Hey Maxxis another +1 for a 2.35 Ignitor. The Ikon does not have enough side knobs for loose gravel.


----------



## armourbl (May 5, 2012)

I'm running a 2.35 now on the front of a 25mm internal width rim. I love the look and round profile of the tire. I tried it tubeless running about 26 pounds of pressure. I feel like I need to go lower. I'm about 200 pounds in my gear before adding the weight of my camelbak. Should I run lower pressure?

Grip was good, but I still feel it could be better. Didn't feel like the tire was flexing too much or anything like that. Actually noticed how loose my rear was (2.2 Ikon) as a result of the better performance up front. Yet, I was timid to try and push the limits of the front during my first ride on it.

ben


----------



## seandm (Mar 18, 2004)

HitmenOnlyInc said:


> When I added sealant, it held fine and I thought it was just dried out Stan's. Now I'm in the same boat. To be fair the tire is not a TR tire but is is a 3C 120tpi tire. I didn't have any problem for the first month it was installed then I went on vacation and found it almost flat...


Craig,

Both of my 2.35's do the same thing. after a year of on and off use they have lost their desire to seat on my rims. I've cleaned and scrubbed them to no avail. They seem to lose their ability to bead up for some reason, no matter how much air I throw at them. All of my other maxis tires do not have this problem even after sitting in my tire pile for a year.

I am finding the Ardent Race up front and the ikon 2.2 in the rear really hooks up like crazy at BR, but you have to run them at really low psi around 22.


----------



## Dagonger (Dec 8, 2011)

8iking VIIking said:


> The DHF rolls well enough for a front tire. It's well worth the small penalty in rolling resistance IMO, they grip like crazy.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


I agree..I run dhf 2,5 3c exo front and ardent 2.4 exo rear during summer time here in Nor cal...Im happy. Rolls better than my fall/winter which is a dhr2 rear.


----------



## seandm (Mar 18, 2004)

I am really starting to dig the ardent race at 20-22 psi up front and the ikon 2.2 in the rear for riding here in the desert. The AR really hooks up up front and yet rolls at a very good pace when paired with the ikon in the rear.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Finally chucked my 2.35 Ikon up front and my Wild Race'R 2.25 out back...

Can feel the rolling resistance has decreased since taken Ardent 2.4 off of front.

The 2.25 Race'R is almost as wide as the Ikon!?

Hopefully some sun and drier trails to follow soon.

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## F29Lefty (Apr 10, 2014)

targnik said:


> Finally chucked my 2.35 Ikon up front and my Wild Race'R 2.25 out back...
> 
> Can feel the rolling resistance has decreased since taken Ardent 2.4 off of front.
> 
> ...


How do u like the ikon up front? Felt sketchy to me in the corners... But pretty fast. But not as fast as the rocket Ron.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

F29Lefty said:


> How do u like the ikon up front? Felt sketchy to me in the corners... But pretty fast. But not as fast as the rocket Ron.


Need more time on it...

Will report back soon o_0

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Not too much time yet with the Ikon 2.35 up front.... but, after a weekend of riding on a variety of trails - rooty, rocky, muddy gnar - pine needle covered flow trails through to pebble covered rail type trails - I think the Ikon will do fine up front. Tire gives ample warning when it's limits are being reached. Didn't happen often. Only when really leaning it over on turns with loose over hard.

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


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

This where the Minion SS comes into the game, fast centre tread like the Ikon, big outer knobs of the DHF, give it a look.


F29Lefty said:


> How do u like the ikon up front? Felt sketchy to me in the corners... But pretty fast. But not as fast as the rocket Ron.
> 
> 
> targnik said:
> ...


----------



## Colin+M (Feb 15, 2009)

That's not meant to be a front tire is it? More suited as a rear tire like the Rock Razor, Slaughter etc.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

LyNx said:


> This where the Minion SS comes into the game, fast centre tread like the Ikon, big outer knobs of the DHF, give it a look.


Looks like dhf front/ss rear would be a killer combo

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Yeah, and...? Neither is the DHR2, but lots of people run it upfront. For someone who has an Ikon 2.35" upfront for XC and wants a bit more in the side knobs dept, I think it's a perfect replacement with just that. If it comes in 2.5" on the same casing as the 2.4" Ardent, Ikon 2.35" and DHF 2.5", then I think it'll be an excellent tyre for XC to Trail riding, depending on trail conditions and makeup, especially for those on rigids who want more volume, but not a 29+ tyre.



Colin+M said:


> That's not meant to be a front tire is it? More suited as a rear tire like the Rock Razor, Slaughter etc.


----------



## Colin+M (Feb 15, 2009)

I wouldn't compare it to the DHR. As someone who has run a 2.35 Ikon and DHR2 upfront, and currently runs a Rock Razor out back...there's no way I'd run the Rock Razor up front on any legitimate dirt trail. Feel free to try it though and let me know how it works out for you, you never know until you try.

Is the Minion SS even available yet?


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I've run the RR 2.35 out front on my 650b steed, on several occasions ^^ no dramas... obviously you can't push it as hard as a Minion or High Roller, but those massive side lugz save your ass just as it tightens up and thinks 'Uh-oh, here I go!!'

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


----------



## 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? 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?

If the Ikon 2.35 works well in the back but someone has another more aggressive tire in the front that pairs well, I'm all ears/eyes. 

Thanks for the help.


----------



## beer_coffee_water (Mar 1, 2011)

Jokoe said:


> If the Ikon 2.35 works well in the back but someone has another more aggressive tire in the front that pairs well, I'm all ears/eyes.
> 
> Thanks for the help.


Run one of the more aggressive Maxxis tires; 2.5 or 2.3 DHF, 2.3 DHRII, 2.3 HRII. It's a fast combo with a ton of grip in the front for cornering and fast drifty, low rolling resistance rear end making climbing less painful.

Even though this is a Maxxis thread look at the 2.4 Goma and 2.4 Chunky Monkey for an aggressive front tire also.

And yes all of these tires are over 900gms so disregard if you're a WW.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Jokoe said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Ikon 2.35 front and rear works great! My wife loves that combo. Racing Ralph 2.35 front and rear is an alternative and excellent combination as well if you want to push the bigger volume meat with tread that also grips for XC.

Rim width, tire pressure all contribute as well. If you like the 2.35 Ikon up front, why not give one in the rear a try as well. The larger volume 29"er tires (such as 2.3 and 2.35) offer a heck of a lot of grip in all kinds of conditions.


----------



## Colin+M (Feb 15, 2009)

MostChillin said:


> What are you running on the front with the RR out back? Some of your early posts about the Ikon 2.35s convinced me to give them a go. Thanks Colin.


Currently a Magic Mary.

The Ikon 2.35 front and rear is a great setup and very fast with adequate grip.

I wanted a tad more grip up front, so I went the the MM.

I will say that the Ikon behaves better in climbing and braking traction than the Rock Razor.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Jokoe (Feb 15, 2015)

Thank you for the feedback everyone!

Might try picking up another Ikon 2.35 for a F & R setup (glad this is a viable option) and then something with a bit more bite like a DHF in the front to see how they contrast.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

OT: my DHF 2.3 should be arriving in a day or two :rubs-hands: can't wait... DHRII 2.3 out back and the DHF up front :woot:


----------



## Dagonger (Dec 8, 2011)

targnik said:


> OT: my DHF 2.3 should be arriving in a day or two :rubs-hands: can't wait... DHRII 2.3 out back and the DHF up front :woot:


Good combo..imho


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

yeti575inCA said:


> Good combo..imho


Thinking about keeping DHF up front for general riding (apart from race day), and using the DHR II outback for wetter months... and maybe getting a Spec GC grid 2.3 (r) for summer riding.

Ikon (f) and Race'R (r) for events.

PS - either selling or chucking the Ardent 2.4... I don't like it =(

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## panchosdad (Sep 21, 2008)

Loving the Ikon rear, but wearing it out and its getting loose around here. Thinking of rotating the Nobby Nic to the rear and getting the DHF 2.3 for the front. Any advice on which of the myriad of compounds to run? Maxx Terra? Dual Compound? DD?


----------



## Dagonger (Dec 8, 2011)

I ran a dhf 3c exo maxterra up front and loved it for all conditions.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Not sure how the DHR2 is in the wet compared to the HR2, but had good luck with the HR2 in wet/mud. In my experience the Spesh tyres don't compare to the Maxxis when it comes to wet.

Don't checuk the Ardent if you can't give it away, it's still a nice, high volume rear for a rigid or HT .



targnik said:


> Thinking about keeping DHF up front for general riding (apart from race day), and using the DHR II outback for wetter months... and maybe getting a Spec GC grid 2.3 (r) for summer riding.
> Ikon (f) and Race'R (r) for events.
> 
> PS - either selling or chucking the Ardent 2.4... I don't like it =(


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Selling DHF & DHRII... getting a Mountain King 2.4 - German made ^^

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


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

targnik said:


> Selling DHF & DHRII... getting a Mountain King 2.4 - German made ^^
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 'Yes! I'm an opinionated Mofo... Next question'.


Mountain King 2.4 is junk like all Continental tires.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

If Maxxis made the Ikon 2.35 in the tan sidewall version like they do for the Ardent, they'd have my money in a heartbeat.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Tanwall Ardent front, and Ikon rear.
Oh yeah


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

NordieBoy said:


> Tanwall Ardent front, and Ikon rear.
> Oh yeah


This is one of favorite combos, Bontrager XR4 team issue 29x2.30 front and Maxxis Icon 2.35 rear. I never like the Ardent front on rear!!

The XR4 is nice and light at 785g for big 2.30 good size knob tire. The sidewalls are also bombproof!! I get them for 55 each. Must get the team issue not the expert!!


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

2.4 Ardent front, 2.35 Ikon rear at the moment.
Tanwall would look good though.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

dgw7000 said:


> Mountain King 2.4 is junk like all Continental tires.


I like the X-Kings on my 26" hardtail SS.
Better climbing grip than the Ikons.


----------



## ttimpe (Nov 15, 2015)

Anyone running the Ardent race 2.2 in the rear with a Ardent 2.4 up front. I'm split between the ardent race 2.2 or ikon 2.35

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## aski (Oct 12, 2006)

I don't have either (yet), but I have read quite a few threads regarding these tires. My take away is to use the Ikon 2.35 if you have the clearance. There are A LOT of folks singing the praises of the larger Ikon as long as your trails are not overly steep/rough/loose. Unfortunately, I believe I would run the risk of seat tube rub if I used the Ikon, so I will likely give the ardent race a try.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

2.35 Ikon front, 2.2 Race rear... my race day set up... Day to day riding I've popped a MKII 2.4 up front (bit more grip). AR staying put, it's that good ^^

-----------------------------------------------------------
-=snifff!!=- What's that you say?


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

I ended up with IKON 2.35 F/R on my Kona Process 111, no clearance issues whatsoever. But I did buy the 2.2 for the rear first then I changed my mind. I based my decision on these observations


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

dgw7000 said:


> Mountain King 2.4 is junk like all Continental tires.


Maybe, where you buy em ^^

-----------------------------------------------------------
-=snifff!!=- What's that you say?


----------



## Dictatorsaurus (Sep 11, 2009)

How does the Ikon 2.35 compare to the Nobby Nic 2.2?


----------



## akazan (Jul 9, 2005)

Just curious if this will work. Any one tried an Ikon 2.2 tire on a 30mm rim w/o burping?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

akazan said:


> Just curious if this will work. Any one tried an Ikon 2.2 tire on a 30mm rim w/o burping?


There's no reason a 2.2 would be more likely to burp on a 30mm rim. Probably the opposite.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## akazan (Jul 9, 2005)

Dirt-Salsa said:


> I switched to IKON's for the Whiskey 50 in Prescott AZ this past weekend. We had stream crossings, technical sections, 7,000 feet of climbing/descending and the IKON's did great. Traction on steep, loose, rocky climbs were no problem. Like them so much that I plan to leave them on and use them for all of my riding here in Phoenix.
> 
> I have them mounted on Roval Traverse SL Fatties (30mm inner width) does ad extra volume/low pressure and great in corners!
> 
> ...


Have you tried mounting a 2.2 Ikon on your 30mm rim w/o burping? Did you try it on front or rear tire. I just want to try it for XC since I have 30mm LB rims.


----------



## DustyTrail (Aug 21, 2015)

My new favorite tire set up for desert XC riding is... 

*Maxxis Ikon 2.35 (r)
*Continental Mountain King 2.4 (f)


----------



## Matija899 (May 4, 2016)

Any problems running 2.35 ikon in front on 19mm inner width rim? (P-xcr 0 27.5, 25mm external)


----------



## pompa (Jun 6, 2009)

i used the 2.35 on 19mm on my ss 
its great


----------



## pompa (Jun 6, 2009)

no i use it on wtb i19 on my ss


----------



## PauLCa916 (Jul 1, 2013)

Matija899 said:


> Any problems running 2.35 ikon in front on 19mm inner width rim? (P-xcr 0 27.5, 25mm external)


You should be fine I've run 2.35 on my 19 mm.
You will have people tell you that you should get wider rims it does have advantages but is not necessary.
I ran mine tube less at 18 to 20 pounds worked great I weigh from 185 to 190 pounds depending on how much riding to how much beer drinking I'm doing.


----------



## Matija899 (May 4, 2016)

Thanks! I'll give it a go. I'm currently using 2.2 ikon front/rear, but am used to x-king protection 2.2. Looking for better grip on slippery roots


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Can anyone compare or even guess how this new Maxxis Forekaster would be up against the Ikon in 2.35? Seems like a solid choice and about the same weight too!

First Ride: Maxxis Forekaster | BIKE Magazine


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Looks like a much slower, albeit grippier, tire.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## lawnboi (Dec 8, 2013)

NH Mtbiker said:


> Can anyone compare or even guess how this new Maxxis Forekaster would be up against the Ikon in 2.35? Seems like a solid choice and about the same weight too!
> 
> First Ride: Maxxis Forekaster | BIKE Magazine


I just picked one up, to replace a 2.35 front ikon. Waiting on my rear ikon to die, so I can swap out the front. Killing this ikon is taking longer than I thought. The forekaster has some big nobs for a tire that weighs pretty much the same as the big ikon. I doubt it will roll as well, the rubber feels fairly soft, but I'm also hoping it's a more do all tire for me as I only use the ikon out front part time. The big exo ikon is my favorite rear though. Rolls, corners and grips great on everything but mud.


----------



## 305coco (Apr 11, 2014)

does anyone known the measurement of an ikon 2.35 mounted on 30/36mm wheels ?? 

my roro 2.25s measure 57mm and I'm wondering how much wider are the ikon to see if I have clearance to try one out. thanks


----------



## pompa (Jun 6, 2009)

if i remembers correctly 62mm on american classic widelighting( 29.3mm)


----------



## TACK72 (Feb 21, 2016)

Love my Ikon 2.2 exo rear but tried Ardent 2.25 as a front but it came out to be smaller than the Ikon 2.2 :madman: 
HT 27,5.

??? Summer set up: Should I try Ardent Race up front or Ikon 2.35? 
Ride aggressive XC.

I have ardent 2.4 exo front and back as my heavy duty set up and love it.


----------



## Kuttermax (Sep 4, 2011)

TACK72 said:


> Love my Ikon 2.2 exo rear but tried Ardent 2.25 as a front but it came out to be smaller than the Ikon 2.2 :madman:
> HT 27,5.
> 
> ??? Summer set up: Should I try Ardent Race up front or Ikon 2.35?
> ...


The two setups I've been running is:

2.4 Ardent Front/2.35 Ikon 3c EXO Rear on my Niner Rip 9 RDO.

and

2.2 Ardent Race EXO Front /2.2 3c EXO Ikon Rear on my Jet 9 RDO.

Both are great setups with the Ardent/2.35 Ikon offering a bit more traction and confidence, but the Ardent Race/2.2 Ikon being a little lighter and faster. However the differences are not that great.

You may want to try just swapping out your rear Ardent for the 2.35 Ikon and see how you like the set up.


----------



## checocc (Sep 15, 2005)

has anyone tried the ikon 2.8? any side by side picture? I'm thinking the 2.35 rear 2.8 front, but don't know if it'll work with a 27mm id rim


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

If new tires are fine, I'd also be looking into the 2.35 Ardent Race - basically the Ikon casing, but AR tread [I'm fairly excited about that]. On a 27mm IW rim, that would be pretty nice.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Yes...I know...older thread...

I just picked up a 2.35 Ikon and tossed it on the front of my Stumpjumper HT. Its the 3C/TR variant (non-Exo). Weighed in at 690g. Running on older Roval rims that are 19mm inner, measures at 2.2 @ 20 psi. Crazy good tire. I'm 165 and ran it down to ~18 psi with no issues.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Just why? ut: Can't imagine why you'd run the biggest Maxxis casing on offer, that's not a PLUS tyre, on a rim so narrow. I cannot even, really don't want to imagine how horrible the tyre roll must be down at 18 PSI :skep:



TiGeo said:


> Yes...I know...older thread...
> 
> I just picked up a 2.35 Ikon and tossed it on the front of my Stumpjumper HT. Its the 3C/TR variant (non-Exo). Weighed in at 690g. Running on older Roval rims that are 19mm inner, measures at 2.2 @ 20 psi. Crazy good tire. I'm 165 and ran it down to ~18 psi with no issues.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^Really? Felt completely normal to me yesterday on my first ride. Speed/handling no worse than what I had on there (2.1 Specy S-Works GC). I am going to be lacing up some new rims in a few months (wider) and figured I may as well get this since I was replacing my tires. I did some reading on it before I purchased for fear of what you are alluding to and most folks said it was just fine...and it is. I started out ~22 psi which is what I used to run the GC at and quickly felt I had too much air. Knocked some out and it felt better. Measured with my digital gauge when I got back to the car and was shocked to see ~18psi..it really is fine.


----------



## pompa (Jun 6, 2009)

TiGeo said:


> Yes...I know...older thread...
> 
> I just picked up a 2.35 Ikon and tossed it on the front of my Stumpjumper HT. Its the 3C/TR variant (non-Exo). Weighed in at 690g. Running on older Roval rims that are 19mm inner, measures at 2.2 @ 20 psi. Crazy good tire. I'm 165 and ran it down to ~18 psi with no issues.


to my experience the none EXO IKON is like paper everything rip them apart


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Did a ride on them in the mountains yesterday on lots of rocks....no issue.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## niles25 (Mar 3, 2012)

Bit of an old thread here but it looks like there are still some active contributors...

I've got a question regarding the Ikon 29x2.35 and rim width. I'm currently building up a bikepacking rig and have narrowed it down to this tire. I'm considering either the Stans Flow MK3 rims or Arch MK3 rims. Does anyone have any pictures/measurement of the 2.35 Ikon on a 29mm and 26mm internal width rim? I'd like to go with the Flows to increase the volume of the tire but I don't want to flatten out the tread a ton and increase the rolling resistance while on pavement/hardpack sections of routes.


----------



## detsortehul (Jun 25, 2007)

niles25 said:


> ... the 2.35 Ikon on a 29mm and 26mm internal width rim? .


Maxxis developer uses af 36mm inner width rim:
Inside the mind of Maxxis - Mtbr.com


----------



## client_9 (Apr 28, 2009)

niles25 said:


> ..... I'm considering either the Stans Flow MK3 rims or Arch MK3 rims... .


FYI - Might wanna look @ the ARC 27 rim also. 
27mm inner dia / 31mm outer dia. - 515g
*50% off *> Easton Arc MTB Rim | Chain Reaction Cycles

The decals peel right off. No residue.


----------



## pompa (Jun 6, 2009)

i dont have pic right now need to look for it 
but if i remember correctly the width is either 62 or 63 mm
inste


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Nope, sorry no pics, but can tell you that I ran one on an i39 rim and it worked fine, casing did not get wider than the tread, but was about right inline, took away the balloon effect. Also ran it on i25 rims and they weren't quite enough for me, definitely think an i30 rim would be much better to help keep volume and add better support to it.


niles25 said:


> Bit of an old thread here but it looks like there are still some active contributors...
> 
> I've got a question regarding the Ikon 29x2.35 and rim width. I'm currently building up a bikepacking rig and have narrowed it down to this tire. I'm considering either the Stans Flow MK3 rims or Arch MK3 rims. Does anyone have any pictures/measurement of the 2.35 Ikon on a 29mm and 26mm internal width rim? I'd like to go with the Flows to increase the volume of the tire but I don't want to flatten out the tread a ton and increase the rolling resistance while on pavement/hardpack sections of routes.


----------



## funnyjr (Oct 31, 2009)

On DT XMC 1200 rims (24mm internal)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Going with 23mm Light-Bicycle carbons over my 19mm Rovals....should be better with those.


----------



## niles25 (Mar 3, 2012)

Excellent, thanks for the input everyone. I think I'm leaning towards the Flow MK3's at this point. It doesn't sound like it will square off the tire at all. I also like the idea of the added strength; knowing that my bike will have an extra 30lbs. of gear strapped to it for weeks on end. 

I appreciate the ARC suggestion client_9 but I haven't had great experiences with those rims in the past...and I get a great deal on Stans.

I'd still love to see a 2.35 ikon on a 29-30 inner width rim if anyone has a picture.


----------



## NJ YetiMan (Nov 18, 2005)

Don't have a picture, but have them mounted to Roval fattie (30mm) and DT Swiss (23mm) and they look like different tires. I had to double check to make sure the one on the DT Swiss was not a 2.2! I also think profile on the 30mm is perfect. Unlike my 2.35 Nobby Nics that square off on the wider rim.


----------



## Jsmith1 (Oct 23, 2010)

Maybe just bad luck but I got two sidewall cuts in three rides on two different ikons. I was running them on some flow ex rims at 30 psi. I liked the volume and traction but my dhrii tires hadn't let me down once. Are tires with 120 tpi that fragile compared to 60 tpi? They were both exo sidewalls. I'm thinking of trying the ardent 2.4 to get the larger volume for my hardtail.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I'm going from Ardent 2.4/Ardent Race 2.35 to Ikon 2.35/Ikon 2.35 on Flow EX rims on my hard tail 26er. I'll be running my normal 18f/20r psi unless it's really rocky where it'll get bumped 2psi each end.
I can't imagine running 30.


----------



## funnyjr (Oct 31, 2009)

Does the Ardent race 2.35 compare in volume to the 2.35 Ikon ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jsmith1 (Oct 23, 2010)

I was running 30 psi because I am 270lbs now.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

funnyjr said:


> Does the Ardent race 2.35 compare in volume to the 2.35 Ikon ?


I think the Ardent 2.4, Ikon 2.35 and Ardent Race 2.35 are the same carcass.
The width difference is in the knobs.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Jsmith1 said:


> I was running 30 psi because I am 270lbs now.


That'll do it.


----------



## fruitafrank (Mar 8, 2011)

I am still running Ikon 2.35 on the back of my Hightower, great rear tire until it gets loose/deep.


----------



## maverickc_c (Nov 4, 2009)

I run Ikon's and they're great unless it is muddy. they tend to pack up IMHO


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Just picked up an Ikon 2.35 that I'm not sure will be better front or rear? I was thinking front initially, but seeing others here running rear as well, or both f and r. The other new tire I have to go along with it is a Barzo 29x2.35 TNT that I had planned for the rear. Both wheels have 30mm internal when I want to go up in tire size. These 2 xc tires will get the most use and will probably air them up and see which has the most volume. The tire that wins (volume) will most likely go on the front. High hopes for both tires and crossing fingers for much traction/speed!


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

I run the Ikon 2.35 both front and rear and really like the tire. Looking at the tread pattern of the Barzo, it reminds me a lot of the X-king, another tire I really liked, and if having both tires, my decision would be to try the Barzo up front and the Ikon out back. The Ikon has almost a center tread that might roll better under your weight than the Barzo, while the Barzo has a offset lug that I'm thinking will cater to grip up front. Just my worthless two cents. Honestly, it's probably a coin toss! I also think your idea of putting which ever one ends up fatter up front is another good thing to try. Who knows, maybe the Barzo out back would be better too. 

Interested to hear your opinions on the Barzo. I personally have always run the same tire front and rear so curious about your impressions.


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

Just installed Ikon 2.35 Front and rear on my 29er full susp. Was impressed on how easy it was to setup tubeless with a floor pump. Excellent grip and feel. I have to say though I was expecting they would roll a bit faster. Might be my imagination though. Previous tires were 2.35 Ground Controls. Running them at 20 psi, RW is about 165. 

The interesting thing is on the same course with these tires I'm finding I'm using a bit less travel in the fork and rear shock. I'm assuming it could be due to how voluminous these tires are and that they may play a more significant role in the overall suspension.


----------



## newking (Nov 6, 2007)

my singlespeed set up is Ikon 2.2 on the rear (light, fast and good bite) and Rocket Ron 2.2 on the front (light, fast and great bite in corners). Both tires on wide carbon rims and look and feel bigger than 2.2 size would indicate.

I have always done he BMX set up with a 2.35 on F and slightly smaller 2.2 on Rear but the IKON / RON combo is keeping me happy at the moment


----------



## beastmaster (Sep 19, 2012)

I had Ikons on my bike a few years ago. There were not well suited to our conditions-very rocky, with big chunks, or loose over hard. I found them to be completely insufficient 85% of the time. I took them off after 100 miles or so and replaced them with Ardents, which I have been riding for several seasons now.

Then one late Saturday last fall I found a deep slash on the sidewall on my Ardent rear tire. It was too late in the day to get another new replacement before a big Sunday ride, so I grabbed the take-off Ikon 2.35 (which I used as a front before) and spun it up on the rear. I rode it until it was dead.

When I had that tire on the front of the '12 Superfly FS, it didn't work (for me). Then when I used that exact same tire on the rear of a different bike-'16 Fuel EX 9.9-it worked excellently.

What do I make of all of this? In the few years between first trying the Ikons, my technical riding, fitness, and overall ability has gone up (sometimes way up) and the new bike has better geo and suspension. which makes exploiting the qualities of the Ikon easier.

That all said, when I replaced the used-up Ikon, I got an Ardent.


----------



## Toot3344556 (Apr 25, 2016)

I mounted 2.35 ikons on a 32 ID rim and the thing looks great. Almost looks like it was made to be a plus tire. I havent got a chance to ride yet though. 

Anyone try this ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chippertheripper (Sep 10, 2014)

I have them on 26id and 28id hoops, as well as a b+ wheel/tire. I've always dug them. I might have reached a tipping point where I need something more agro up front though.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I have run one on an i39mm rim and it worked well, but not for the intended purpose I was trying to use it for, as with so much sidewall support it wasn't very plush, even at low pressures, had to drop pressure too low to feel good and got rim strikes _(this was on my rigid on the rear)_, other than that it worked fantastic on the wide rim, also have run it on i29 and i25 good on those too, although prefer it on wider rims than the i25.



Toot3344556 said:


> I mounted 2.35 ikons on a 32 ID rim and the thing looks great. Almost looks like it was made to be a plus tire. I havent got a chance to ride yet though.
> 
> Anyone try this ?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toot3344556 (Apr 25, 2016)

LyNx said:


> I have run one on an i39mm rim and it worked well, but not for the intended purpose I was trying to use it for, as with so much sidewall support it wasn't very plush, even at low pressures, had to drop pressure too low to feel good and got rim strikes _(this was on my rigid on the rear)_, other than that it worked fantastic on the wide rim, also have run it on i29 and i25 good on those too, although prefer it on wider rims than the i25.


I tried 2.35 Ralphs on the 32i and it was a disaster.

The profile squared off and all the sidewall tread was touching at all times. 
This doesn't seem to be the case with the Ikons. ( Not that they have sidewall tread like the RR's but because they follow the curve that they should).


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Finally got my new Ikon 2.35 Max Speed mounted to Hulk bike i30mm carbon rear wheel. Also had a Barzo 2.35 mounted to my front XM481 wheel. I have to say that the Ikon edges out the Barzo in the volume department. Had em both at 40 psi max and the Ikon won by about 1/16 inch. I still ended up putting it on the rear based on better tread pattern and more knobs than the Barzo for grip out back. The Barzo is also an awesome tire in its own right and has wider spaced knobs that are a hair taller too.
Was able to really test this combo out on the trail with mixed wet/dry/mud conditions after some good rainfall. Both tires gripped very well in all conditions and felt very fast to me. The Ikon especially performed well on the back...the grip and speed were fantastic all around. Deep mud was only place these tires lacked in. Gravel, roots, rocks, hard pack (all slightly slick) felt in control. These will both be my trail and racing tire setup for this season....blown away!
Front: 21 psi
Rear: 20 psi
:thumbsup:


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

More pics from above post^^ Barzo is 1st two pics, then of the Ikon...


----------



## funnyjr (Oct 31, 2009)

Anybody able to compare the nobby nicks 2.6 vs Ikon 2.35


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## black_taco (Apr 12, 2005)

Can someone please measure the overall height aka overall diameter of the IKON 2.35 for me? Please include the width of the rim with your measurement. With all of this talk about the IKON 2.35 being a large volume tire I suspect it measures more than 29". I am looking for a touch taller tire but not a full on 29+ setup. Thanks in advance!


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

What are you running now? It's a good volume tire for sure. For me its perfect. I run it at 16f, 17r on a hardtail and I don't get rim strikes. Mine is measuring at about 29.25 diameter and that's on a 21 internal Crest.


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

black_taco said:


> Can someone please measure the overall height aka overall diameter of the IKON 2.35 for me? Please include the width of the rim with your measurement. With all of this talk about the IKON 2.35 being a large volume tire I suspect it measures more than 29". I am looking for a touch taller tire but not a full on 29+ setup. Thanks in advance!


Real close to 29.3 or 744.5 mm by my tape. Running them on carbon i30 rims at about 20 psi. The width after about 3 months and hundreds of miles comes in at about 2.42. Quite impressed with this tire out back as it handles all kinds of conditions....highly recommended! :thumbsup:


----------

